


!iC!!l,r:l 



M. SCHOOL SURVEY 









;'rh,t I ■' 



'^r'im 



\'.\ ' 






s'f ./ ^ ■' ■ /.'iii'ii'i 



'!,!l,ii -lii'ilii'*''' 









!^ I'iili 






,'!., ill. : 



■jM,' 



i;i»¥: 




Class _ L'SSiSl^ 
Book.__-> MllLQ .„ 
GopyiightN" ' 



COEXRIGIir DEEOStt 



FINANCIAL SUPPORT 



JOINT COMMITTEE ON RURAL 
SCHOOLS 

State Grange 

G. W. DUNN MRS. F. GATES 

G. C. McNINCH 

Department of Education 

F. B. GILBERT R. P. SNYDER 

G. M. WILEY 

Dairymen^s League 

E. R. EASTMAN. Secretary ALBERT MANNING 

N. F. WEBB 



Farm Bureau Federation 
H. c. Mckenzie, vice-chairman w. g. mcintosh 

C. S. POST H. G. REED 



State College of Agriculture 

J. E. BUTTERWORTH P. J. KRUSE 

G. A. WORKS, Chairman 
Home Bureau Federation 

MRS. M. E. ARMSTRONG MRS. A. E. BRIGDEN 

MRS. EDWARD YOUNG 

Scale Teachers^ Association 

J. D. JONES MYRTLE E. MacDONALD 

W. E. PIERCE 



Committee on Direction 

G. A. WORKS, Director 

MRS. A. E. BRIGDEN, Assistant Director 

G. M. WILEY, Assistant Director 



RURAL SCHOOL SURVEY 
of NEW YORK STATE 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT 



By 
HARLAN UPDEGRAFF 

PROFESSOR OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION 
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 



Ithaca, New York 
1922 



Copyright, 1922, by 
Harlan Updegraff 



WM • F. FELL CO. PRINTERS 
PHILADELPHIA 



DEC27'.:2 

'C1A690744 






FOREWORD 

ONE of the most significant educational problems of the day 
is the relationship of the state to the support of schools. 
Two factors have been especially important in bringing it 
to the fore so far as it relates to the rural school. 

There has been a marked increase during the past generation in 
the cost of schools. A part of this increase is due to the fact that 
young people are attending school for considerably longer periods, 
and the educational program that is made available to them is much 
more varied than it was formerly. A further factor in augmenting 
expenses is the fact that the cost of elements involved in running an 
effective school system has grown greatly. The standards for ad- 
mission to the teaching profession are constantly being raised thus 
resulting in longer periods of preparation and higher salaries for 
teachers. The expense involved in this phase of the question has 
been greatly augmented in recent years by the rapid growth in sec- 
ondary school population. 

During the period when the costs in education have been mount- 
ing so rapidly we have changed from a rural to an urban nation with 
cities as our great centers of wealth. As a result of these two changes 
the farmer is today placed at a distinct disadvantage when it comes 
to furnishing schools of the extent and quality that present-day 
standards demand. A century ago, when we were essentially a rural 
people, when but little schooling was considered necessary, and 
when there was relatively little aggregation of wealth in the urban 
centers, the farmer could handle his school problems with little or 
no financial assistance from the state. The extent to which he can 
cope unaided with them today undoubtedly varies from state to 
state, but the inadequacy of a system of state support that was 
devised for very different conditions than those of the present are 

5 



well set forth as a result of Dr. Updegraff's study of conditions in 
New York. His study is so fundamental and his recommendations 
so soimd that they can hardly fail to influence legislation relating to 
school support not only in New York but in every state. 

A grant from the Commonwealth Fund made possible the re- 
search represented by this report as well as the printing of the 

findings. 

Geo. a. Works, 

Director 



PREFACE 

THIS survey of the financial aspects of the administration 
of the rural schools of New York was undertaken at the 
request of ^^The Committee of Twenty-one,'^ representing 
four state- wide farmers' organizations; the State Department of 
Education, the New York State Teachers' Association, and the 
Rural Education Department of Cornell University. It was begun 
in February, 1921, and almost completed by December of that year, 
at which time a condensed report of the facts and recommenda- 
tions was submitted to the Conomittee. That report, except for 
certain changes in the recommendations, was printed by ^^The 
Joint Committee on Rural Schools" as Chapter XIII of its ^^ Rural 
School Survey of New York," published in January, 1922. This 
present volume, on the other hand, contains the complete survey 
study and is printed in the same form as prepared by the author 
without amendment by the Committee. 

In so far as the local aspects of the financial problems are con- 
cerned, the study has been confined to the common school and 
union free school districts. But inasmuch as the financial admin- 
istration of rural schools unavoidably involves state financial 
support, and inasmuch as all classes of districts must be taken into 
consideration in the formation of a policy of state support of schools, 
it was necessary to include also such data for cities and villages as 
would furnish adequate information relative to unit costs, property 
valuations, and tax-rates of such districts. 

Data from other states have been included to only a limited de- 
gree: first, because there seemed to be but little material available 
that was recent and comparable; and second, because the method 
of study adopted required not only an intensive scientific study of 
all sides of the question in this one State, but also the determina- 

7 



tion of a solution that would fit the actual situations therein. Such 
a method is believed superior to the usual comparative method of 
utilizing data from several or many states, which necessarily pre- 
sent different conditions foreign to the one surveyed. 

Since the most important fact revealed by the study was the 
great differences among the various rural school districts, whether 
organized as common school districts, as townships, or as com- 
munity districts, both in their ability and in their desire to support 
good schools, the organization of the material has seemed inevitably 
to take that form which seemed best adapted to show the ways in 
which central, or state, support might be used so as to obviate the 
effects of these deficiencies wherever and so long as they existed, 
and to remove the causes thereof as soon as possible. Thus, from 
this point of view the study may be considered as having as a minor 
theme the state support of local schools. 

The author has had considerable difficulty in determining which 
tables to incorporate in the text, which to put into the Appendix, 
and which to omit altogether. The basis for the final decision 
adopted was — (1) to take out of the text those tables which, although 
logically belonging to it, but because of their number or size, would 
interfere with its facile reading; (2) put into the Appendix all of 
these tables thus excluded and also such others as it seemed neces- 
sary to include in order to show that correct scientific methods had 
been followed; and (3) to omit all other tables. (The essential 
summaries of these omitted tables are, however, contained in the 
printed tables.) 

The recommendations of this study will be found to differ with 
those found in Chapter XIII of the Joint Committee's Survey re- 
ferred to above in certain other points than those affected by the 
Committee's action, to which reference was made in the first para- 
graph. After the condensed report was made in December the 
author continued his study for the purpose of improving the state- 
ment of the theory of school support, of perfecting the methods of 
its practical application, of computing the costs to the State of the 
various alternative plans, and of testing their effect in so far as this 
was possible. It is not practicable to designate all of the differences 
between the two volumes. Generally speaking, the Committee's 

8 



alterations of the author's recommendations were confined to cer- 
tain forms of Special Aid. It omitted altogether, for example, aid 
for purchase of transportation equipment, increased the aid for 
normal graduates teaching in the rural schools, and enlarged the 
scope of schools for which such aid should be available. The 
author has retained such recommendations in this volume in the 
original form in which he presented them to the Committee. His 
alterations, on the other hand, have been for the most part confined 
to the field of General Aid. The formula has been improved and 
tables prepared to control its operation. This involved a simplifi- 
cation in the method of computing aid for the expenses of transpor- 
tation and for the amounts granted for high school teachers. Since 
these and certain other minor changes involve no radical change of 
principle, the author believes they will receive the approval of the 
Committee, especially since they make the plans already approved 
more equitable and more effective in their operation. 

The extent to which the recommendations submitted are applic- 
able to other states is dependent upon the extent of similarity of 
conditions; the theory upon which they are based should govern 
equally well, yet with differences in emphasis upon particular 
aspects, in all the states. The point most strongly emphasized in 
this study is the importance of considering true wealth taxable for 
schools and demonstrated interest in schools as vital factors in de- 
termining the share of state support that a local district should 
receive. New York is fortunate in having already a good measure 
of true wealth; certain other States are equally, or almost, as well 
off. It is to these states that the conclusions of this study can be 
most closely applied. Other states may learn from them the im- 
portance of the early establishment of an adequate and reliable 
measure of taxable wealth through the establishment of efficient 
state tax commissions. 

The author also wishes to record here his warm appreciation of 
the assistance that a large number of persons have rendered him in 
the gathering of facts, in the preparation of material, in the criti- 
cizing of measures proposed, and in getting the volume through the 
press. Without their valuable help, so generously given, this 
volume would not have been possible. Among them are the Chair- 

9 



man and many members of the Committee of Twenty-one, the 
Acting Commissioner of the State of New York and various mem- 
bers of his staff, many district superintendents and school directors 
throughout the State of New York, the members of the Field Staff 
of the Finance Section of the Survey, and his own office staff in 
Philadelphia. Among these are four persons to whom he feels 
particularly indebted: Dr. George A. Works, Professor of Rural 
Education, Cornell University; Dr. LeRoy A. King, Assistant Pro- 
fessor of Educational Administration, University of Pennsylvania; 
Miss Christine Reilly, Statistical Clerk in the Bureau of Educational 
Measurements, University of Pennsylvania, and Miss Katherine 
Diehl, his Secretary. 

The Author 
May 31, 1922. 



lo 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAP. PAGE 

I. Introduction 17 

II. Social and Economic Conditions 23 

III. Local Administrative Organization and Procedure 35 

IV. Expenses of Schools 43 

V. Valuations 69 

VI. Tax-Rates 89 

VII. Possible Remedies Through Local Readjustments 101 

VIII. Theory of State Support of Local Schools 110 

IX. Present New York Plan of General Aid 119 

X. Proposed Plan for Apportionment of General Aid 133 

XI. SPEaAL Aid 157 

XII. Field Work 164 

XIII. Comparison of Costs, State Aid and Tax-Rates Under Present 

and Proposed Plans 179 

XIV. The Practicability of the Proposed Plan 195 

Appendix 203 



II 



LIST OF DIAGRAMS 

DIAGRAM PAGE 

1. Progress of costs of schools per capita in United States and in New York, 

1880-1920; and increase in percent of per capita costs based upon costs 
of 1880 27 

2. Progress of total state expenses for government and for schools 1890-1920, 

and increase in percent of total cost based upon cost of 1890 28 

3. New York's rank among the states in revenue receipts for state govern- 

ment, and amounts and percents of such revenue, 1918-1919 32 

4. New York's rank among the states in cost of public schools and amounts 

of such cost, 1917-1918 33 

5. New York's rank among the states in state expenses for schools and high- 

ways, and amounts and percents of such expenses, 1918-1919 33 

6. Expenses per pupil in 1006 common and 81 union free school districts, and 

104 cities and villages, 1919-20, illustrating Table 17 64 

7. Equalized valuations per teacher in 1011 common, 79 union free, and 104 

city and village school districts, illustrating Table 29 86 



12 



LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE PAGE 

1. States having in 1917-1918 a higher cost of education per capita pupil 

attending than New York 27 

2. States which had in 1918-1919 higher revenue receipts per capita for 

state government from all sources than New York 29 

3. States which had in 1918-1919 higher expenses of state government per 

capita for schools than New York 30 

4. States which had in 1918-1919 a higher percentage of expenditures of 

state government for schools than New York , 31 

5. States which had in 1918-1919 a higher percentage of expenditures for 

highways than New York 32 

6. Total expenses per teacher in 1013 common school districts in the 24 

supervisory cfistricts 44 

7. Percent of total expenses for teachers' salaries in 1006 common school 

districts in the 24 supervisory districts 48 

8. Twenty-four supervisory districts ranked on the basis of median total 

expense per teacher and correlated with the ranking of the districts 
according to median percents in various financial items 49 

9. Twenty-four supervisory districts ranked on the basis of median total 

expense per teacher and correlated with the ranking of the districts 
according to medians of various financial items 51 

10. Expenses per pupil in 1006 common school districts in the 24 super- 

visory districts 52 

11. Average daily attendance in 987 common school districts in the 24 

supervisory districts 55 

12. Relationship of total expense per teacher, cost per pupil and average 

daily attendance in Delaware County, supervisory district No. 2 . . . . 57 

13. Correlation coefficients: (a) Total expenses per teacher and various 

items of expense per pupil in average daily attendance, and (b) ex- 
penses per pupil in average daily attendance, and various items of ex- 
pense per pupil in average daily attendance, in 24 supervisory dis- 
tricts included in Table 12 58 

14. Relationship between average daily attendance and the total expense 

per teacher in the first supervisory districts of Delaware, Monroe and 
Tompkins Counties respectively 60 

15. Expenses per pupil in 81 union free school districts in the 24 supervisory 

districts 61 

16. Expenditures per pupil in first-, second- and third-class cities and vil- 

lages under superintendents 62 

17. Expenses per pupil in 1006 common and 81 union free school districts 

and 104 cities and villages under superintendents 63 

18. Percent of total expenses for teachers' salaries in 1006 common school 

districts, 81 union free school districts, and 59 cities 65 

19. Median, third quartile, first quartile, middle fifty percent and coefficient 

deviation of various items of expenses per pupil for various classes of 
districts 67 

13 



TABLE PAGE 

20. Median, third and first quartiles, middle fifty percent and coeflQcient 

deviation of various items in the percentage distributions of expenses 
for various classes of districts 67 

21. The assessed valuation of real estate and personal property and their 

relationship in a number of typical towns and counties 69 

22. The relationship between the assessed valuation and true valuation per 

teacher in the first supervisory district of Delaware, Monroe and 
Tompkins Counties respectively 73 

23. Equalized valuations per teacher in 1011 common school districts in the 

twenty-four supervisory districts 74 

24. Assessed valuations of District No. 16, town of Ulysses, Tompkins 

County 80 

25. Assessed valuations of district No. 13, town of Ulysses, Tompkins 

County 81 

26. Assessed valuations of district No. 9, town of Chili, Monroe County. . . 82 

27. Assessed valuations of district No. 4, town of Clarkson, Monroe County 83 

28. Equalized valuations per teacher in 79 union free school districts in 

the 24 supervisory districts 84 

29. Equalized valuations per teacher in 1011 common school and 79 union 

free school districts and 104 cities and villages under superintendents, 
illustrated by Diagram 7 85 

30. Relationship between average daily attendance per teacher and equal- 

ized valuation per teacher in 571 common school districts of Dela- 
ware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties 87 

31. Equahzed tax-rates of 1070 common school districts in the 24 super- 

visory districts 90 

32. School districts in Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties repre- 

senting extremes in equalized tax-rate 92 

33. Equalized tax- rates in 79 union free school districts in the 24 super- 

visory districts 93 

34. Equalized tax-rates in 104 first-, second-, and third-class cities and vil- 

lages under superintendents 94 

35. Equalized tax- rates in 1070 common school districts, 79 union free 

school districts and 104 cities and villages under superintendents .... 95 

36. Equalized valuations per teacher and equalized tax-rates in 573 common 

school districts having an average daily attendance of over 10— Dela- 
ware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties 96 

37. Relationship between average daily attendance per teacher and equal- 

ized tax-rate in 574 common school districts of Delaware, Monroe 
and Tompkins Counties 98 

38. Relationship between amount of total expense per teacher and the 

grants made by the state in accordance with the equalized valuation 
per teacher in the first supervisory district of Delaware, Monroe and 
Tompkins Counties respectively 123 

39. Equalized valuation and equalized tax-rates for 34 union free school 

districts .•••.•. ^^^ 

40. Equalized valuation per teacher and equalized tax-rates in cities re- 

ceiving $450 state aid 125 

41. Equalized valuation per teacher and equalized tax- rates in villages re- 

ceiving $450 state aid 126 

42. Relationship between equalized valuation and equalized tax-rate for 

cities receiving $550 127 

43. Relationship between equalized valuations and equalized tax- rate for 

cities receiving $650 state aid 128 

14 



TABLE PAGE 

44. Equalized tax-rate and the amount of money received by cities from the 

state more or less on the basis of the amount contributed by them. . 129 

45. Amounts of state aid districts of varying equalized valuations back of 

each teacher will receive for each teacher under Form I for each mill 

levied, and amounts of local support required 134 

45a. Possible standards in constructing the abihty and effort plan for gen- 
eral aid 139 

46. Amounts of state aid districts of varying equalized valuations will re- 

ceive under Form II for each mill levied, and amounts of local support 
required 146 

47. Amounts of state aid districts of varying equalized valuations will re- 

ceive under the second part of Form III 149 

48. Amounts of state aid districts of varjdng equalized valuations will re- 

ceive under both parts of Form III combined 150 

49. Equalized valuation per teacher and percent of expenses for transporta- 

tion to be paid by state 161 

50. List and description of typical projects in Delaware, Monroe and Tomp- 

kins Counties 181 

51. Comparison of expenses, in community districts— (1) With schools as 

now organized; (2) with reorganized community schools; (3) percent 

of increase 184 

52. Analysis of valuations, expenses and state support in the reorganized 

community districts 186 

53. Relationship between percent of total expense met by state support and 

equalized valuation per teacher 188 

54. Percentage analysis of state support in the reorganized community dis- 

tricts 190 

55. Comparison of tax-rates in community districts: (1) With schools as 

now organized and present aid; (2) with schools as organized and 
proposed revised aid; (3) with reorganized community schools and 
proposed revised state aid; (a) current expenses only; (b) current 
expenses, new buildings, transportation equipment and (4) differences 
between 3a and 3b 192 

56. Comparison of the reorganized community districts on the basis of (1) 

Deduction for low attendance, (2) tax-rate without this deduction, 
(3) tax-rates with this deduction, (4) differences between tax-rates 
(3) and (4) 193 

57. Expenditures for different purposes for the year ending July 31, 1920. . 203 

58. Expenditures for different purposes for the year ending July 31, 1920 

(per capita pupil, average daily attendance) 203 

59. The percent of total cost in common school districts for each item of 

expense 204 

60. Assessed valuation, tax-rate, rate of equalization, equalized valuation, 

equalized tax-rate, equalized valuation and state support per teacher 
and pupil 204 

61. Percent of total expenses distributed for other expenses of instruction in 

1008 common school districts in the 24 supervisory districts 205 

62. Percent of total expenses distributed for wages of janitors and other 

employees in 996 common school districts in the 24 supervisory 
districts 206 

63. Percent of total expenses distributed for fuel in 1012 common school 

districts in the 24 supervisory districts 207 

64. Percent of total expenses distributed for cost of maintenance in 999 

common school districts in the 24 supervisory districts 208 

15 



TABLE PAGE 

65. Percent of total expenses distributed for auxiliary agencies in 1008 

common school districts in the 24 supervisory districts 209 

66. Expenditures for salaries of teachers per pupil in 1006 common school 

districts in the 24 supervisory districts 210 

67. Expenditures for other expenses of instruction per pupil in 1008 common 

school districts in the 24 supervisory districts 212 

68. Expenditures for wages of janitors per pupil in 999 common school dis- 

tricts in the 24 supervisory districts 213 

69. Expenditures for cost of fuel per pupil in 1012 common school districts 

in the 24 supervisory districts 214 

70. Expenditures for cost of maintenance per pupil in 999 common school 

districts in the 24 supervisory districts 216 

71. Expenditures for auxiliary agencies per pupil in 1008 common school 

districts in the 24 supervisory districts 218 

72. Expenditures for teachers' salaries per average daily attendance in 

1070 common school districts, 79 union free school districts and 104 
cities and villages under superintendents 219 

73. Expenditures for other expenses of instruction (per average daily atten- 

dance) in 1008 common school districts, 81 union free school districts, 
104 cities and villages under superintendents 220 

74. Expenditures for wages of janitors (per average daily attendance) in 999 

common school districts, 81 union free school districts, 104 cities and 
villages under superintendents 221 

75. Auxiliary agencies per average daily attendance in 1008 common school 

districts, 81 union free school districts, 104 cities and villages under 
superintendents 222 

76. Expenditures for cost of fuel (per average daily attendance) in 1012 

common school districts, 81 union free school districts, 104 cities and 
villages under superintendents 223 

77. Expenditures for cost of maintenance (per average daily attendance) in 

999 common school districts, 81 union free school districts, 104 cities 
and villages under superintendents 224 

78. Percent of total expenses distributed for other expenses of instruction in 

1008 common school districts, 81 union free school districts, 59 cities 225 

79. Percent of total expenses distributed for wages of janitors and other em- 

ployees in 996 common school districts, 81 union free school districts 
and 59 cities 226 

80. Percent of total expenses distributed for fuel in 1012 common school 

districts, 81 union free school districts, and 59 cities 227 

81. Percent of total expenses distributed for cost of maintenance in 999 

common school districts, 81 union free school districts, and 59 cities 228 

82. Percent of total expenses distributed for auxiliary agencies in 1008 com- 

mon school districts, 81 union free school districts, and 59 cities 229 

83. Equalized valuations per teacher in first-, second-, and third-class cities 

and villages under superintendents 230 

84. Equalized valuations and number of teachers for first-, second-, and 

third-class cities arranged according to valuations per teacher in 
ascending order 231 



i6 



FINANCIAL SUPPORT 

CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

Findings of the Study 

FAIRLY complete statement of the findings of the study may- 
be found in summary form in the first parts of Chapters VII 
and XIV (see pages 101 and 195). These deal with the local 
and state, or central, aspects of the problem respectively. 

Brief Description of the Study 

A State survey of schools whether it be rural or urban neces- 
sarily includes the review of both the local or district, and central 
or state, factors involved. This is particularly true of a financial 
survey, especially if there are wide differences among the various 
local school districts either in their abiUty to afford proper support 
for schools or in their efforts to provide an efficient education for 
their children. 

Accordingly the study may be considered as having two parts fol- 
lowing this Introduction and Chapter II upon Social and Economic 
Conditions. In the first division dealing with local finances the 
study presents a review of the efficiencies and inefficiencies in those 
agencies of local administration which deal with finances (Chapter 
III). Thesubjectof costs is next considered (Chapter IV). Analysis 
and comparisons are made within the rural school districts them- 
selves as to total expenses, expenses per pupil and percentage dis- 
tributions and also between the various types of districts within 
these same respects, including the common school districts, union 
free school districts, villages under superintendents and cities. 
2 17 



These studies of local administrative machinery and of expenses 
reveal an unfortunate financial situation in many of the rural school 
districts of the State which should be remedied at the earliest oppor- 
tunity. In so far as causes are local in character and financial in 
origin they are for the most part included in the two chapters 
upon Valuations (Chapter V) and Tax-Rates (Chapter VI) . The 
treatment of these subjects reveals a number of interesting facts 
which are of great consequence and which furnish the most impor- 
tant data for the working out of a proposed plan of state support. 
Before this latter subject is entered upon the findings of all the 
chapters deahng with the local phases of the situation are brought 
together with a statement of the bearing of these conclusions upon 
the various forms of local territorial units for the administration of 
schools (Chapter VII). There are also attached to this chapter as a 
sort of addenda two other somewhat related subjects relative to the 
support of local schools, namely, bonding and the financial adminis- 
tration of a possible intermediate unit. 

In the second portion of the study concerning the finances of the 
central, or state unit, as opposed to those of the local, or district units, 
there is first presented a chapter dealing with the theory of school 
support in which is laid down the foundation for the criticism of 
the present system of central support and also for the revised plan 
recommended as an improvement thereupon (Chapter VIII). It 
contains a statement of the principles and the criteria by which 
both the existing and proposed plans of state support are judged. 
Chapter IX describes and criticizes the present New York system of 
general aid and also makes references to similar systems in certain 
other states, particularly those of New England. Then follows the 
chapter in which the proposed plan for General Aid is described in 
full detail (Chapter X). An evaluation of New York's various 
forms of special aid is included in Chapter XI, together with sug- 
gested modifications and extensions thereof. 

It did not seem wise to close the study without a practical test 
of the conclusions reached as regards both the workings of the pro- 
posed plan of central support and the operation of the reformed plan 
of local finance under a new territorial unit. The chapter which 
follows tells how the Field Staff of the Financial Section of the Survey 

i8 



made a fictitious reorganization of the schools and of the school dis- 
tricts (Chapter XII) in order that the validity of the conclusions of 
the study might be established by actual trial under conditions very 
similar to those which would actually prevail if they were afterward 
adopted by law. This chapter contains a statement of the stan- 
dards, relating to the size of territory contributory to a school and 
to costs of combined and community schools, which were w^orked 
out on the basis of conditions both within and without the State as 
furnished by the preceding chapters and also by other sections of the 
Survey. 

Chapter XIII gives in detail the comparative costs of schools to 
the tax payers as measured in terms of tax-rates with various com- 
binations of different territorial units and different plans of state 
aid. This chapter also contains the opinion of the author as to the 
validity of the claims made for the proposed revised system of state 
support. Finally, in Chapter XIV the answer is given to the ques- 
tion whether it is practicable for New York to institute the new plan 
of state aid proposed, together with further comments upon it. It 
also contains a summary of the findings of the second part of the 
study. 

Districts Included in Study 

The study has been confined to rural school districts except in so 
far as it seemed necessary to make comparisons with cities in order 
to obtain a true picture of education throughout the State as a 
whole. These comparisons are made in costs, valuations and in tax- 
rates, also in the operation of the present system of state aid and 
in the effect of the proposed revised system of state aid. 

Of the 208 district superintendents' districts in the State, 24 were 
assigned by the Joint Committee on Rural Schools to this section of 
the Survey. They contain approximately 1100 common school dis- 
tricts out of the 9644 in the State and 81 out of the approximately 
645 union free school districts. Thirteen of these supervisory dis- 
tricts are situated in and compose all of the territory in three widely 
separated counties especially designated for intensive study by the 
Committee as best representing the State as a whole. In addition 
to these 24 supervisory districts certain data were obtained from 18 
other supervisory districts which were used to check the reliability 

19 



of the data obtained from the 24 supervisory districts as typical data 

for the entire State. 

Field Work 

The Field Staff was composed of four men, all of whom had 
previously given special attention to the study of rural school prob- 
lems and who had had experience with rural schools and were well 
acquainted with the social life of the country people. They were 
Doctor Julian E. Butterworth, Professor of Rural School Adminis- 
tration, Cornell University; Doctor LeRoy A. King, Assistant Pro- 
fessor of Educational Administration, University of Pennsylvania; 
Thomas A. Bock, Assistant Director of the Department of Rural 
Schools, State Department of Education, Harrisburg; and John D, 
Brooks, Graduate Student of the University of Pennsylvania, 
formerly Superintendent of Schools, Sussex County, Delaware, and 
Superintendent of Schools in several cities and towns of Massa- 
chusetts which included rural territory. This staff furnished a very 
important part of the data upon which the conclusions of the study 
are based. The staff met with the Director of this section at Cornell 
University in the early part of June 1921 for the preliminary con- 
sideration of plans. After these had been tentatively agreed upon 
each man went into the field assigned to him for two days of actual 
work with the plans. Another conference followed at which the 
plan of operation and the standards to be used were definitely 
fixed. During the three weeks they spent in their respective coun- 
ties the Director visited the various fields and coordinated their 
work, giving such additional instructions as seemed necessary. 
Each man completed the recording of his data and the computations 
thereof in the field. During all of this work these men had the cor- 
dial assistance of the district superintendents and of many of the 
citizens of the communities. Every effort was made to obtain a 
true statement of all the essential points involved. 

The field work was confined to the three counties selected as most 
typical of the entire State. Delaware is a mountainous county, 
situated in the foot-hills of the Catskills and contiguous to the north- 
eastern corner of Pennsylvania. The population is sparse ; property 
valuations are low; dairying is the dominant industry; and trans- 
portation is difficult. In contrast, Monroe County, situated along 

20 



the border of Lake Erie, has a rich soil; is thickly settled, having 
Rochester, the third city of the State, as its county seat; property 
valuations are high; its industries are varied, and there are excellent 
roads, numerous railways, and street car hnes making communica- 
tion between its various parts relatively easy. Tompkins County 
possesses characteristics midway between these two extremes and 
is, perhaps, as typical of the State of New York as any county that 
could be found. It is situated near the middle of the State with 
Ithaca as its principal center of population. The southern part of 
the county is hilly and its soil is poor. In the northwestern part of 
the coimty the topography is relatively level and much of its soil 
is of good fertility. Its population is near the average and its 
property valuations are not near either of the extremes ; and, while 
transportation presents considerable difficulties in certain portions 
of the county, it is quite normal in others. 

Materials and Method of Study 

The study presents three different aspects from the standpoint of 
materials and method. First, there is a study of data relating to 
receipts, payments, valuations, etc., furnished by the State Educa- 
tion office, the State Tax Commission and other state offices. In 
the treatment of the data the usual standard methods are followed. 
The chapters dealing with expenses, valuations and tax-rates 
(Chapters IV, V and VI) fall in this group. Second, there is a study 
of the data gathered in the field by the Field Staff in which a new 
adaptation of methods before suggested in previous studies is used. 
This appears for the most part in the chapters on local school ad- 
ministrative machinery and comparison of expenses, tax-rates, val- 
uations and state aid under different plans (Chapters III and XII) . 
Third, material of a more original character is found in a theory of 
state support of local schools, in the derivation of a new method 
based thereon, and in the testing of its practical operation (Chapters 
VIII-XIV). 

Conclusions 

The conclusions of the study are found in Chapters VII and 
XIV which close respectively the treatment of the local and central 
sections of the report. Briefly, it may be said that this study shows 

21 



that there are, on the one hand, very great differences in the ability 
of school districts to support schools, and, on the other hand, great 
differences in their conceptions of what a good school is, and, there- 
fore, a lack of effort to have eflScient schools. The situation requires 
a reorganization of schools and also a reorganization of school dis- 
tricts, which support and control these schools, into larger units so 
arranged as to promote the best interests of the education of every 
child to the fullest extent of his need. A revised system of state 
support is also necessary in order to equalize valuations and tax- 
rates and to develop new conceptions regarding the standards of 
education in local communities, and at the same time to preserve in 
them that degree of initiative and independent action which will 
foster a democratic government. Another aim which should con- 
trol in the working out of this plan is that it should be so con- 
structed as to respond readily and definitely to those changes which 
may occur in a local district from time to time either as regards its 
ability to support schools or its desire for better or poorer schools. 
A formula and also working tables for the distribution of the 
amounts of state aid are furnished which, it is believed, satisfy all of 
these conditions. 



22 



CHAPTER II 
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

THE total population in the State of New York for the year 
1920 as given by the United States Bureau of the Census was 
10,385,227, of which 1,795,383 were residing outside of "cities 
and other incorporated places having 2500 inhabitants or more."^ 
The rural school population constitutes about 17.3 percent of the 
total. While this is small relatively, the proportion of native white 
population is high, constituting 87.8 percent. The parents of 
approximately two-thirds were born in the United States. Further- 
more, this rural population is greatly decreasing in numbers. In 
only nine of the counties of the State was there an increase in rural 
population from 1910-20. The rural population is densest along the 
Hudson River, the Mohawk Valley and the shores of Lake Erie, 
while the sparsest population is in the Adirondack region. 

Twenty-one percent of the total number of pupils registered, 
deducting duplicates in the public schools in the year 1919-20, was 
in the towns, which division of territory corresponds most closely 
to that which is designated "rural'' by the United States Bureau of 
the Census. The schools in this territory were not, however, as 
regularly attended as in the cities, since but 19.9 percent of the total 
aggregate attendance of the State was reported from these districts. 

The total expenditures for public schools in the State of New 
York in 1920 were $108,596,912 of which $22,714,140, or 20 percent 
of the total, was spent in the towns .^ The percentage spent for 
the current expenses in the towns was slightly less, the figures 
for the State being $93,585,462 and for the towns $18,315,325 or 
20 percent.^ 

It will thus be seen from the above figures that this study deals 
with approximately one-fifth of the total population, one-fifth of the 

^ Fourteenth Census of the United States — Population: New York, 1920 
Bulletin, Page 2. 

2 State Department of Education, Albany, N. Y. ^ Ihid. 

23 



total registration and attendance pupils and one-fifth of the total 
expenditures and total expenses. It is also significant that the citi- 
zens who exercise local control over these schools are mostly of pure 
American stock and that their number is gradually decreasing. 

Topography 
The highest altitudes in New York State are in the Adirondacks 
north of Albany and Utica. The next highest is in the Catskills 
south of the Mohawk Valley and west of the Hudson. The lowest 
level, aside from that in the neighborhood of New York City, is 
along the borders of Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River, which 
compose the northwestern boundary of the State. Thus the drain- 
age of the State is for the most part toward the west and north, the 
rivers running from the Adirondack andCatskill Mountains and the 
high hills to the west and southwest of the latter, toward the Great 

Lakes Basin. 

Products 
During the past ten years there has been a considerable decrease 
in the number of acres of land used in the raising of corn, oats, 
peas, beans and similar products, and a corresponding increase in 
the number of acres devoted to the growing of hay and forage crops. 
Rural New York is dominantly a dairy country. The economic 
position of the farmer has not been improving as may be seen from 
the fact that there has been an increase in the past ten years of from 
43.7 percent to 46.9 percent in the percentage of mortgaged farms, 
and of 50 percent in the amount of mortgaged debt. The average 
debt per farm has increased 57 percent, while the average value of 
the farm has increased about 43 percent.^ 

The School District in Rural New York 
In this study are included all school districts in the State situated 
in " towns. " A town in New York is the equivalent of a township in 
the western part of the United States. All the territory in the State 
of New York, not included in the 104 cities and villages under 
superintendents, is included in the towns. Two kinds of districts 
are found in these several towns: the union free school district and 

^Fourteenth Census of the United States — Agriculture: New York, 1920 
Bulletin, page 5. 

24 



the common school district. There were in 1917, 10,289 of these 
two classes of districts in which 16,330 teachers were employed. 
There are now approximately 645 union free school districts, the 
great majority of which contain a village and support a high school. 
The common school districts which are composed almost entirely 
of farm land, support a one-room, one- teacher elementary school. 
Since there are about 1000 towns and approximately 10,289 dis- 
tricts situated in these towns, it follows that there are on the 
average ten districts to a town. However, there is a wide variation 
for some towns have 40 districts. 

These districts are very irregular in size, their boundaries are 
quite indefinite. Maps giving district boimdaries cannot as a rule 
be found. The assessors and the district trustees know the houses 
that are included in the various districts, and since the farm belongs 
to the district in which the farmhouse is situated, it is not necessary 
to preserve as well defined lines as is required in most of the states 
of the Union. These districts vary also greatly in size, the average 
being approximately four square miles to each district. School- 
houses are smaller than the usual one-teacher district school of the 
west, and the school grounds are even smaller proportionately than 
the schoolhouses. In this connection it should be remembered that 
these grounds frequently were laid out seventy-five or a hundred 
years ago, and that many of the buildings in the State are fifty or 
more years old. 

The Wealth of the State of New York 
New York is one of the wealthiest states in the Union, in pro- 
portion to her population. According to the latest report of the 
Bureau of the Census, the true value of all taxable property was, 
in 1912, $21,912,000,000, 50 percent more than in the State of 
Pennsylvania which is second upon the list. Because of her large 
population, however, she did not have so much per inhabitant 
as ten of the other states, all of which are situated in the middle 
or far west where population is more sparse. In proportion to 
the number of school children. New York is fourth in the Ust, 
three western states, Nevada, California and Montana surpassing 
her. It is thus clearly seen that New York can spend liberally for 

25 



the support of schools as compared with the other states in the 
Union. However, in 1912 she was not doing this. While Idaho in 
that year spent 50 cents of each one hundred dollars of true taxable 
wealth, New York spent but 26.4 cents, which was below the 
average for the United States as a whole and less than 27 states 
spent for public education. 

The reports of the Internal Revenue Commissioner of recent 
years will bear out this same conclusion. New York pays far larger 
amounts on account of income and corporation taxes than any 
other state in the Union. 

Income of People of the State of New York 

The most recent reliable data regarding the income of persons 
residing in the United States is that furnished by the National 
Bureau of Economic Research, New York City, for the year 1919. 
The tables prepared by Oswald W. Knauth show — (1) that in in- 
come per capita of population New York led all of the states with 
$874.00; (2) that in average income per person gainfully employed 
she again leads with $2014 as the average amount; (3) that in 
average income per farmer she stands twenty-first with $1807 as 
the average; (4) that in the percent of total income going to farmers 
she stands among the lowest of the states, only 3.45 percent, Rhode 
Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and Montana 
being the only states having smaller amounts. 

From these figures two conclusions of value in this study may 
safely be drawn. First, New York is financially able to make 
liberal expenditures for public schools. Second, the farmer is not 
in so good a position financially to grant liberal support to schools 
as are the inhabitants of urban communities. 

Costs of Schools in the State 
The absolute costs of schools in the State of New York for the 
last year for which comparative figures are furnished, 1917-1918, 
were higher in dollars and cents than those of any other state. The 
amount spent per pupil attending was exceeded by 11 other states, 
all of which were situated in the west or middle west with the 
exception of New Jersey which lies next to New York in rank, as 
may be seen from Table 1. 

26 



Table 1.— States Having in 1917-18 a Higher Cost of Education Per 
Capita Pupil Attending Than New York^ 

United States $41.45 

1. Montana 80.54 

2. Arizona 74.81 

3. Nevada 73.37 

4. North Dakota 67.81 

5. California 67.18 

6. Washington 67.18 

7. South Dakota 63.30 

8. Iowa 61.87 

9. Idaho 61.28 

10. Colorado 58.65 

11. New Jersey 58.51 

12. New York 58.12 

1 Report U. S. Commissioner of Education, Bulletin No. 11, 1920, p. 148. 



Dollars per 
year 



10 




Per cent 
1200 



1000 



800 



600 



400 



200 



i860 



1890 



1900 



1910 



1920 



Diagram 1. — Progress of costs of schools per capita in United States and in 
New York, 1880-1920; and increase in percent of per capita costs based upon 
costs of 1880 



27 



These statements may seem strange to the citizens of New York 
in the Hght of the recently increased cost of schools in that State, 
but what has happened in New York has been happening elsewhere, 
and strange as it may seem, in increased measure. Diagram 1 



Millions of 
dollars per 
year. 

SO 



60 



40 



20 




Per 
cent 



800 



600 



400 



>00 



1890 



1900 



1910 



1920 



Diagram 2. — Progress of total state expenses for government and for schools 
1890-1920, and increase in percent of total cost based upon cost of 1890^ 



shows, according to the reports of the Commissioner of Education, 
Department of the Interior, that while the cost per inhabitant in 
New York increased from $2.03 in 1880 to $10.21 in 1920, the 

1 Report of Comptroller of State of New York 1920, pp. 423-431. 

28 



average for the United States as a whole went up from $1.56 to 
$9.89. The increase from 1880 to 1890 was the same in both New 
York and the United States. Between 1890 and 1900 New York's 
cost increased more rapidly than in the country as a whole, but 
since that time costs elsewhere have gone up more rapidly than they 
have in the State of New York. 

It is still more significant in this connection that during the same 
period New York has not hesitated to increase the total expenses 
of her State Government as compared with the total state expenses 
for schools. As is shown in Diagram 2 her expenses for State Gov- 
ernment in 1920 were 600 percent of what they were in 1890, while 
the expenses of schools were not quite 300 percent of what they were 
in that year. The appropriation of 1920, however, probably put 
her nearly on the same plane in schools as in other respects. 



Table 2. — States Which Had in 1918-19 Higher Revenue Receipts Per 
Capita for State Government From All Sources Than New York ^ 

1. Arizona $15.02 

2. Nevada 14.88 

3. Utah , 13.45 

4. Connecticut 12.35 

5. Montana 12.27 

6. Minnesota 11.96 

7. Wyoming 11.24 

8. California 10.40 

9. Massachusetts 10.35 

10. Vermont 10.21 

11. Maine 9.71 

12. New Jersey 9.20 

13. Michigan 8.89 

14. Delaware 8.53 

15. South Dakota 8.22 

16. Washington 8.16 

17. Wisconsin 8.07 

18. New York 8.01 



Her revenue per inhabitant for State purposes as it appears in 
Table 2 was, in 1919, $8.01, less than in 17 other states. At the 
same time the amount given by the State per inhabitant for the 
support of schools was exceeded by 40 other states, as is seen in 
Table 3. 

1 U. S. Bureau of the Census, Financial Statistics of States, 1919, p. 62. 

2Q 



Table 3. — States Which Had in 1918-1919 Higher Expenses of State 
Government Per Capita For Schools Than New York ^ 

United States $1.74 

1. Arizona 5.46 

2. Utah 5.13 

3. Nevada 4.54 

4. New Jersey 4.04 

5. Minnesota 3.62 

6. Wyoming 3.55 

7. California 3.49 

8. Michigan 3.42 

9. Montana 3.19 

10. North Dakota 3.19 

11. Washington 3.00 

12. Maine 2.98 

13. Texas 2.86 

14. Wisconsin 2.85 

15. New Mexico 2.77 

16. South Dakota 2.77 

17. Delaware 2.63 

18. Idaho 2.29 

19. Vermont 2.25 

20. Kentucky 1.93 

21. Nebraska 1.91 

22. Indiana 1.89 

23. Colorado 1.75 

24. Virginia 1.72 

25. Maryland 1.68 

26. Oregon 1.67 

27. Kansas 1.63 

28. New Hampshire 1.41 

29. Mississippi 1.40 

30. Connecticut 1.37 

31. Alabama 1.36 

32. Missouri 1.34 

33. Georgia 1.30 

34. Iowa 1.29 

35. Pennsylvania 1.25 

36. West Virginia 1.19 

37. Oklahoma 1.17 

3S. Arkansas : 1.14 

39. Ohio 1.14 

40. Louisiana 1.11 

41. New York 1.11 



In the percentages of expenditures of state government for 
schools New York was, in 1919, in a very low position being 44th 
out of 49 states as is shown in Table 4. In respect to highways, 
however, she had a relatively high position, being ninth in the Ust as 

1 U. S. Bureau of Census, Financial Statistics of States, 1919, p. 87. 

30 



Table 4. — States Which Had in 1918-19 a Higher Percentage of Ex- 
penditures OF State Government for Schools Than New York^ 

Percent 

United States 33.S 

1. Utah 57.5 

2. North Dakota 54.2 

3. Texas 53.2 

4. New Mexico 51.0 

5. Mississippi 50.8 

6. New Jersey 49.9 

7. Georgia 49.2 

8. Delaware 48.7 

9. South Dakota 46.2 

10. California 45.0 

11. Alabama 43.7 

12. Arizona 43.6 

13. Nevada 43.5 

14. Nebraska 43.3 

15. Wisconsin 42.6 

16. Michigan 42.3 

17. Washington 42.4 

18. Kansas 42.4 

19. Kentucky 41.7 

20. Virginia 40.5 

^ 21. Indiana 40.0 

22. Wyoming 38.4 

23. Minnesota 38.3 

24. Arkansas 37.9 

25. West Virginia 37.1 

26. Idaho 35.8 

27. Montana 35.2 

28. Maine 34.6 

29. North CaroUna 34.3 

30. South Carolina 34.1 

31. Oregon 33.0 

32. Missouri 31.7 

33. Illinois 31.3 

34. Tennessee 31.0 

35. Oklahoma 30.9 

36. Louisiana 29.9 

37. Colorado 29.5 

38. Ohio 28.9 

39. Pennsylvania 26.8 

40. Iowa 26.3 

41. Maryland 25.1 

42. Vermont 22.2 

43. Florida 19.0 

44. New York 18.8 

appears in Table 5. The practice of New York as regards state aid 
to highways furnishes an example with which any future plans for 

1 Bureau of Census, Financial Statistics of States, 1919, p. 88. 

31 



Table 5. — ^States Which Had in 1918-19 a Higher Percentage of Ex- 
penditures FOR Highways Than New York^ 

Percent 

United States 11.4 

1. Washington 29.7 

2. Connecticut 22.8 

3. Oklahoma 21.3 

4. Idaho ; . . . . 20.0 

5. Maryland 19.9 

6. New Hampshire 19.6 

7. Colorado 19.6 

8. Vermont 18.5 

9. New York 18.2 



Below ITI. Above 
^a Dollars t^<^s53 Per oont ■■■EZZZZ] Raiik 



Dollars 



«8.01^^^ 



Total per inhabitant 



Rank 
18th 



$3.53^ 



Per capita from property taxes 



Sist 



Per cent 



Per cent from property taxes 



44a^K\\^\\\ \^\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \^ 



J35th 



Per cent from special taxes 



9«l^ K\VsN 



ED 2nd 



Per cent from business taxes 



35 . 3^^^^^^^^ 



K 



6 th 



Diagram 3. — New York's rank among the states in revenue receipts for state 
government, and amounts and percents of such revenue, 1918-1919 



^ U. S. Bureau of Census, Financial Statistics of States, 1919, p. 88. 

32 



Below N.Y. Above 

^^ Dollars ■■■HZZZHI Rank 



Dollars Rank 

Cost of schools per inhatitsuit per year 



126th 

$7.61^^^ 



Coot of schools per pupil per year 



558.00 V/////////// /// ////////^^^^^^ 



Cost of schools per pupil per day 

■■■■■■■■■■■■■KZIZZZIZZZZD 17th 



tO,3lB 

Diagram 4. — New York's rank among the states in cost of public schools and 
amounts of such cost, 1917-1918 



^^^ Below NX Above 

^^ Dollars ^^Per cent ■■■EZZZII Rank 

Dollars Rank 

Expenses for schools per inhabitant 



_- 141st 

$1,110 



Expenses for highways per inhabitant 

■■■■■■■■■■■■■ill hill 



$1.07S 
Per cent 



Percentage of expenses for schools 

1 44 th 



18.8^^^^^ 

Percentage of expenses for highways 

■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■IB^^B^iMEZZZZIgth 

l8,2fo^^^^^ 

Diagram 5. — New York^s rank among the states in state expenses for schools 
and highways, and amounts and percents of such expenses, 1918-1919 

3 33 



state aid may well be compared. From these two statements there 
seems to have been good reason for the State increasing its support 
to the common schools in the year 1920, which fact has probably 
brought it up to about the tenth or twelfth in rank in the latter 
respect. 

Other Facts in Regard to the Support of Schools 

In the year 1918, 90.5 percent of the revenue received from schools 
was raised locally, and 95.10 percent was received by taxation of 
the local and state governments. The local tax was levied for the 
most part upon real estate and upon franchises of railroads and 
public service corporations. Taxes upon the latter two were paid 
only to those school districts in which the property is located. 

The mill and a half state tax for schools as levied in 1920 is 
charged to the various counties by the State Tax Commission in 
accordance with the equalized valuations which it has determined 
upon after its agents have studied, in the various towns, the rela- 
tions between the assessed valuations and the sale valuations of 
properties that have been sold. The Boards of County Commission- 
ers distribute the tax among the various towns in their respective 
counties in accordance with such equalized valuations as are deter- 
mined by them. Thus the state and county each concern them- 
selves with the assessed valuations of their subdivisions only to the 
extent that it is necessary for their own administrative purposes. 
Each town is permitted to assess its own property and levy its own 
tax upon whatever basis of valuation it may desire. 

Because of the fact that the recent income tax law passed in 1920 
provided that one-half of the revenue raised under it shall be 
distributed among the various towns in proportion to their assessed 
valuations, there is now a state-wide movement toward increasing 
the assessed valuations to nearly their true valuations. 



34 



CHAPTER III 

LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION AND 

PROCEDURE 

Local School Administrative Machinery — Officers and 

Duties 

THE administrative organs of a common school district are 
the annual district meeting, the single trustee or board of 
three trustees (the former in the large majority of cases), 
the district clerk (rarely found, the trustee performing his duties), 
the tax collector, the treasurer (whenever the annual meeting 
votes to have such officer), and the town supervisor. 

The annual district meeting elects the ofi&cers just named and 
levies the taxes. The only minimum and maximum limits which 
are specified in the law are (1) an adequate amount to run the 
school, paying the teacher at least the minimum salary provided 
by the State, and (2) a maximum amount of $25 per year for 
library books, apparatus, etc. The officers are elected for one year, 
except if there are three trustees, each is elected for three years. 

The trustee prepares the tax-roll in accordance with the action of 
the district meeting and delivers it to the collector. He also has 
the authority to levy certain taxes required by state law in case the 
district meeting fails to levy them. He is the custodian of the 
school property, selects the teacher, prescribes the course of study 
and the text books, and is the chief administrative agency of the 
district. 

The sole function of the collector is to collect the taxes on the 
tax-roll except when he also serves as treasurer, in which case he is 
the custodian of the school funds. He pays out on the order of 
the trustee or, when there are three trustees, on the order of at 
least two of them. The treasurer receives the tax money from the 

35 



collector and pays it out upon the order of a single trustee, or two 
trustees as the case may be. 

The supervisor of the town is the custodian of the so-called state 
money, which is composed of the funds distributed by the State 
Commissioner of Education to the various districts. In case any 
district directs him to do so after the tax collector or the treasurer 
has filed a proper bond, he must turn such district's share over to 
the district officer. In many portions of the State, however, this is 
seldom done. 

Procedure of Raising, Collecting and Caring for School 

Money 

The tax-rolls are prepared annually by a board of town assessors 
during the summer months. The common school district's trustee 
copies such portion of the town tax-roll as is applicable to his own 
district having no authority to alter the same except in certain very 
unusual specified conditions. The annual meeting occurs in the 
evening of the first Tuesday in May. At this time the trustee is 
expected to present a budget showing the amounts that will be 
needed to run the school during the coming year, beginning with the 
first day of August. Usually the school meeting votes upon the 
character of the school and then leaves it to the trustee to determine 
the amount of tax that will be required upon the property as 
assessed to furnish the necessary amount of funds. This practice 
cannot be seriously criticized, however, because of certain condi- 
tions. It is not always possible to ascertain the exact amount of 
taxable property, nor, on the other hand, to determine the amount 
of money necessary to expend in order to get the kind of teacher 
desired. It will be observed that practically four months intervene 
between the time of the annual meeting and the date on which the 
tax-roll is supposed to be given to the tax collector, August 31. A 
number of contingencies may occur during this interval. 

There are several features in which the financial procedure, other 
than that just mentioned, would deserve our favorable or unfavor- 
able criticism. First, it is to be noticed that there is a useless mul- 
tiplicity of officers. Just why it is desirable for a common school 
district, having an area of from three to six square miles, with an 

36 



attendance ranging from 5 to 25 and with a population of from 50 to 
150 people to have the school money, not usually amounting to 
over $1000 per year, distributed among two or three persons, each 
of whom must file a bond and make the required reports, is not ap- 
parent upon the surface, nor has the Survey staff been able to find 
justification for this practice. 

In contrast with this unfavorable practice is another which is to 
be commended, namely, making use of the county treasurer to col- 
lect the taxes of certain corporations. It is believed that if the 
county treasurer were made the officer to whom all taxes were to be 
paid at stated times in the year — ^possibly by dividing payments 
into two portions, separated by three or four months — not only 
would time unnecessarily consumed by these various officers in 
duplicating work be economized, but the cost of schools would also 
be reduced by reason of the saving of the fees paid to such officers. 
This consolidation of all machinery of tax collection prevails in cer- 
tain of the western states, as in the state of Iowa, and has been found 
to work smoothly. A farmer coming from the State of Iowa to the 
State of New York would be greatly perplexed by the complicated 
nature of the system of payment of taxes — not only school taxes, but 
other taxes as well. The Iowa plan represents a later step in the 
evolution of tax collecting and the farmers of New York might well 
consider its adoption in this state. 

Under this plan the county treasurer would turn over to the 
district treasurer the funds properly belonging to the district at cer- 
tain specified times in the year. It usually happens, in those states 
in which such a plan prevails, that the farmers pay their taxes at 
local banks scattered throughout the counties, which banks are 
depositories for the county funds. When the county treasurer turns 
these amounts over to the district, they usually remain in the same 
bank to which the taxes are paid but the district treasurer now 
has the control over them rather than the county treasurer. 

The Machinery in Operation 

In connection with its field work the Financial Section of the 
Survey took occasion to inquire into the management of the annual 
meeting, of the trustees and of the financial officers in so far as 

37 



seemed necessary in order to reach a judgment regarding the effi- 
ciency with which they handled financial matters. Blank forms were 
prepared at the conference of the field workers in Ithaca containing 
an outline of the points of which inquiry should be made of district 
superintendents, trustees, merchants and others as they came in 
contact with these persons in the course of their field work. It be- 
came apparent very soon, at least in the territory covered by the 
field workers, that the practices were unbusinesslike and wasteful in 
practically all districts although carried on honestly and oftentimes 
at considerable personal sacrifice. Because of this apparently uni- 
versal condition it was concluded that further personal inquiry was 
superfluous and that just as reliable information could be gathered 
more easily through a questionnaire and from a territory much 
greater than could possibly be covered by the field workers. The 
experience of these men in their field work made it possible, how- 
ever, to direct the questions toward those factors which were of 
the most importance in the financial administration of rural schools. 
Two questionnaires were prepared, one directed to the 208 dis- 
trict superintendents of the State and the other to the trustees of 
common school districts. This latter questionnaire was sent to the 
district superintendents with the request that they be sent to those 
trustees who would be most likely to answer the questions. One 
hundred and twenty-eight replies were received from the district 
superintendents and 944 from the district trustees. The questions 
asked, together with the percentage of common school districts for 
which afiirmative replies were given, are as follows: 

1 . Are crayons, brooms and pails purchased for your school at a 
local store? According to the district superintendents such practice 
prevails in 86 percent and according to district trustees in 96 percent 
of the districts. 

2. Are discounts secured from retail prices? According to both 
the district superintendents and the district trustees such discounts 
are secured in only four-tenths of one percent of the districts. 

3. Are competitive bids secured on fuel? District superintendents 
said bids are secured in 18 percent and trustees in 43 percent of the 
districts. 

4. Are competitive bids secured on furniture, maps, globes, etc.? 

38 



District superintendents said this is done in four percent while the 
district trustees said it is done in 12 percent of the districts. 

In contrast with the practice set forth above may be presented the 
plan followed by certain Boards of Education during the year in 
which the town system prevailed in New York. A group of towns 
located near each other in Erie County made estimates of the 
amount of supplies of all kinds that would be needed for the coming 
year and submitted them to various firms. As a result, a saving of 
from 20 to 40 percent was made over what would have been neces- 
sary to pay for this same material had it been bought at the local 
stores by the respective school systems according to the practice 
now prevailing. The inevitable conclusion is that purchasing of 
school supplies in small country stores is an expensive practice. 
While the country store is a convenient place to make such pur- 
chases, a proper supply of the best material needed for the school 
must so frequently be lacking as to count greatly against the effici- 
ency of the school. 

4a. Was the advice of the district superintendent sought during 
the past year in the selection of educational supplies and equipment? 
The district superintendents say that this was done in 56 percent of 
the districts. 

This indicates such a lack of professional participation in the 
purchase of supplies as to indicate clearly considerable waste by 
reason thereof. It is well known among school administrators 
throughout the United States that district trustees are frequently 
imposed upon by agents who have such supplies and equipment to 
sell. This constitutes one of the most unfortunate species of waste 
that we have in the public schools of the country today. 

5. Did the trustee present a statement or budget to the annual 
meeting last year giving the amount of money needed for various 
purposes to run the schools next year? District superintendents 
said this was done in 52 percent and the trustees in 49 percent of 
the cases. 

5a. Did the trustees seek the advice of the district superintendent 
in preparing such a statement? District superintendents said this 
was done in 26 percent of the cases. 

6. Did the meeting vote a lump sum to run the schools next year? 

39 



The superintendents said this was done in 40 percent of the districts, 
trustees in 41 percent of the districts. 

7. Did the meeting vote a definite amount for definite purposes? 
Superintendents said this was done in 23 percent and the district 
trustees in 72 percent of the districts. 

8. Did the meeting direct the trustee to decide the amount to be 
raised by tax? The district superintendents said this was done in 
33 percent and the trustees in 61 percent of the districts. 

From the replies to the last five questions it would seem that 
the crudest sort of planning was done in regard to the expenditures 
for the coming year and that in but one-half of the cases was any 
assistance rendered by a professional school officer. Full efiiciency 
would require that a careful estimate be made of all items of expense. 
If these estimates are not prepared by a professional ofiicer, they 
should in all cases be submitted to him for his suggestion. The 
practice in city school districts is to have the city superintendent 
prepare a detailed statement of the expenses of every school in his 
system, bringing this statement together into one large budget for 
the entire system. 

From the replies of the district trustees it would seem that only 
about 20 percent of the district meetings voted definite amounts for 
definite purposes, while approximately 40 percent voted a lump 
sum and the remaining 40 percent left it to the trustees to determine 
an amount to be raised by tax. Thus it is that approximately 40 
percent of the district meetings were virtually ciphers in so far as 
tax matters were concerned. In fact, the trustees might have 
acted without the participation of the town meeting. 

9. Does the collector or the treasurer keep a separate bank 
account for school funds? District superintendents said this was 
done in 67 percent and the trustees in 75 percent of the cases. 

This reveals a most unbusinesslike practice carried on by at least 
25 percent of the treasurers of the school districts of the State. A 
number of incidents were encountered in the course of the field work 
in which the treasurer not only kept district money mixed with his 
own, but also kept it at home. In one case at the end of each year 
a treasurer who mixed school money and personal money indis- 
criminately would come with his wife, who had an unusual memory, 

40 



to the district superintendent, tell him the transactions and have 
him make out the report for him. While this is an extreme instance, 
it well illustrates loose practices which are not uncommon. 

10. What percent of the school taxes are usually paid on or before 
October first? Taxes are due upon September first and a five per- 
cent penalty which may go into the pocket of the tax collector is to 
be paid after October first. According to replies from district trus- 
tees, in 52 percent of the districts not over 25 percent is paid in, in 
15 percent of the districts not over 50 percent is paid in, in 16 per- 
cent of the districts not over 75 percent is paid in, while practically 
all of the taxes are paid before October first in perhaps but 10 per- 
cent of the districts. 

The loss is considerable during one year to the common school 
districts of the State of New York, because of this failure to collect 
taxes promptly and place the money on interest in the local banks. 
This practice as well as some of the other conditions that have been 
revealed is to be explained by the fact that the schools are carried 
on as a big family affair would be managed. In some districts it 
is the practice not to collect money until it is needed to pay the 
teacher. If a man desires to be accommodated, he is permitted 
to put off paying his taxes until he has funds in hand. In a small 
community such adjustments can be made without financial loss, 
but not without loss of considerable time to all concerned. When, 
however, they lead to such practices as are revealed in the next two 
questions it would seem as though a reform were desirable. 

11. Does the collector exact the five percent tax fee after October 
first? District superintendents said that this is done in 61 percent 
and district trustees said in 81 percent of the cases. While these 
percentages seem too large from the impressions that the members 
of the Survey Staff gained in the field, nevertheless it seems very 
unfortunate that any such large penalty as this should go to the 
benefit of the tax collector rather than to the benefit of the schools. 
It would be much better for the State of New York to fix a salary 
for its fiscal officers and to have the benefit of all penalties accrue to 
the schools rather than to the officers. 

12. Were payments of salary and bills postponed last year on 
account of uncollected taxes? The district superintendents said 

41 



this was the case in 53 percent of the districts, while the trustees 
report this to be the case in only 5 percent. 

The members of the Survey Staff believe that a figure midway 
between these two percentages would be more nearly correct. 
Examples were found where teachers were obliged to wait several 
months for their salaries because of the failure of the collector to 
collect taxes. This is very unbusinesslike and unworthy of any 
government office, particularly those connected with the schools. 

13. Is the collector required to give bond? District superintend- 
ents said that this is required in 81 percent of the cases while the 
district trustees said it was done in 87 percent of the cases. 

This failure to require a bond of the treasurer in one-eighth of the 
school districts in the State, practically 1000 districts, is a practice 
that should not be continued. It is not in accordance with the 
policy of good government to permit any officer having possession 
of public funds to go unbonded. 

14. Does the district receive interest from the bank upon the 
weekly or monthly balances on the district's account? Replies 
from the district trustees indicate that this is true in about five 
percent of the school districts. 

Replies to two other questions indicated that it was necessary to 
borrow money in 18 percent of the districts and that it was the prac- 
tice in two-thirds of the districts to borrow money at the bank and 
in one-third of them to borrow from men living in the community. 

Most district trustees are to be commended for the sacrifice 
they make in order to carry on the business of the schools. 
Inasmuch as the position is considered an undesirable one, it is 
not to be wondered that there are many instances of poor business 
methods. In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect a trustee to 
exercise in many instances the same careful procedure that would 
be followed if purchases were larger, or for him to take a consider- 
able amount of his own time to bring to the district savings that 
in the aggregate are not large. 

Many of these faults lie in the fact that the district is so small. 
Money can be saved through the introduction of better business 
practices to much greater advantage if a larger unit for the purchase 
of supplies and for the collection of taxes were adopted, 

42 



CHAPTER IV 
EXPENSES OF SCHOOLS 

THERE are four kinds of fundamental tables upon which the 
work of this study is based: (1) actual expenditure dis- 
tributed among various items, (2) cost per pupil for each of 
these items, (3) percent distribution for the expense items, and (4) 
receipts, valuations and tax-rates. Data of these four kinds were 
obtained separately for 1013 common school districts, for 81 union 
free school or academic districts and for all villages under superin- 
tendents and all cities in the State. Tables 57, 58, 59 and 60 giving 
each of these kinds of data for the common school districts situated 
in the town of Masonville, Delaware Coimty, are printed in the 
Appendix in order to show exactly the character of this basal ma- 
terial described.^ 

Analysis of expense of schools may be profitably pursued from 
two divergent points of view: (1) the expense per unit of organiza- 
tion, such as is represented by a teacher and her pupils, (2) expense 
per unit of product, such as is represented by the average daily 
attendance. The former method is peculiarly applicable to the 
rural schools inasmuch as most of them are one-teacher schools, and 
are so similarly situated that if they observed the same standards 
as to the character of school to be maintained they would all cost 
approximately the same amount irrespective of the amount that the 
schools produced through the instruction of pupils. This method 
furnishes a mmiber of interesting points throwing light upon the 
present rural school situation in this State. 

^ Debt Service and Outlays are not treated in the study. Only approxi- 
mately one-eighth of the common school districts had any such expenditures 
and many of the amounts were very small. Others, while large, were for a 
single year. In other words, there is so much irregularity in these classes of 
expenditures that a careful study did not seem worth while. 

43 



Expenses per Teacher 
In Table 6 there is brought together in combined form facts rela- 
tive to the costs per teacher of all the common school districts 





Table 6.— 


-Total Expenses Per Teacher i 


[N 1013 




Supervisory districts 


Total 
expenses 

per 
teacher 


6 


d 


6 
Q 


d 

Z 

a 


10 

d 

Q 

ii 

8 

5 
6 
5 
2 

*2 

1 

40 
1 

$648 


VO 

d 

i 

2 

6 

7 

4 
8 
8 

2 
2 

1 

i 
i 
1 

44 

5 

$690 


1 

c 



d 

2 


1^ 


d 

2 

c 


:^ 
'2 

3 
4 
4 
3 

4 

6 
2 
4 
6 

5 
2 
3 
1 

1 

*i 
1 

2 

1 

55 
20 

$950 


d 

I 

s 



$440-479 
480-519 
520-559 
560-599 
600-639 

640-679 
680-719 
720-759 
760-799 
800-839 

840-879 
880-919 
920-959 
960-999 
1000-1039 

1040-1079 
1080-1119 
1120-1159 
1160-1199 
1200-1239 

1240-1279 
1280-1319 
1320-1359 
1360-1399 
1400-1439 

1440-1479 
1480-1519 
1520-1559 
1560-1599 
1600-1639 

1640-1679 
1680-1719 
1720-1759 
1760-1799 
1800 and over 


i 

5 

11 
8 
7 
6 
4 

2 


i 

! 

6 

6 

4 
3 
4 

1 

1 
2 
4 

2 
1 


i 

1 

1 


6 

1 

3 
6 

7 
1 

1 

i 


"2 
11 

16 

7 
4 
5 
2 

'2 

i 
1 


2 
2 
9 
4 
1 

4 
1 
3 
3 

i 

1 

1 

*i 

i 

39 

23 
$995 


i 
3 
3 
2 

5 
2 

1 
2 
3 

1 
2 

37 
22 

$990 


3 

4 

6 

4 
6 

4 

1 

3 
5 
1 


Total 


51 
8 

$728.5 


49 

7 

$726.6 


50 

7 


51 

3 

$671.25 


44 

21 

$953.33 


Rank 


Median cost .... 


$65 


2.3 



First quartile = $681.61 



Third quartile = $956 
44 



Median = $786.20 



situated in these 24 selected supervisory districts. This table is to 
be read as follows: In Supervisory District No. 1 of Delaware 
County there is one common school district which has a total 



Common School Districts 


IN THE 24 Supervisory Districts 


> 














Supervisory 


districts 












d 

1 


6 

CO 


d 

1 


d 

g 


o 

2 

c 


d 


i 


1 

s 


1-4 

.2 


d 


d 


1 
1 


1-4 

d 

iz; 

IP 


1 

1 


1 
o 


o 


o 


o 


J3 


^ 


^ 


U4 


a 


C 


CO 


.4^ 


T 


3 




H 


H 


H 


U 


CJ 


U 





K 


O 


o 


o 


C/3 


w 




•• 


•• 






•• 




•• 


*i 


•• 


•• 


1 

3 






1 




i 






i 




2 










13 










4 






1 








3 






40 


2 


2 


6 




7 


1 


3 


4 




1 


1 


6 




2 


83 


3 


7 


8 




5 




6 


5 


1 


1 


4 


10 




4 


109 


6 


3 


5 


2 


9 


3 


8 


4 


2 


3 


6 


5 




6 


105 


2 


5 


10 


2 


3 


2 


4 


7 


2 


2 


4 


10 




6 


100 


6 


5 


3 


3 


2 


7 


3 


6 


3 


1 








8 


80 


4 


5 


2 


6 


1 


3 




4 


3 


4 


4 






4 


65 


3 


3 


1 


6 




5 


1 


1 




3 


2 






3 


59 


4 




2 


3 




3 




4 




3 


1 






2 


48 






2 


6 




5 


1 


1 




2 


1 






4 


58 


1 




3 


4 




1 








3 










31 


1 




2 


2 




3 




2 




6 










31 














1 






3 










25 














1 


i 




4 


1 








31 














2 


1 




1 










22 
















1 




1 


1 




3 




16 




•• 


•• 










1 




1 






3 




17 




•• 


. 


^ 






2 




* 


i 


1 

i 


! ! 


4 
3 
2 
3 

6 
1 

"i 




16 
8 
9 

5 
4 

13 
5 

i 

1 




•• 
















•• 


•• 




'i 

1 




2 
3 
1 








•• 


32 


41 


•• 




•• 








*5 
42 




1 

7 


ZZ 


37 


51 


43 


32 


44 


34 


42 


27 


56 


39 


1013 


15 


14 


10 


18 


4 


17 


6 


12 


16 


19 


11 


9 


24 


13 




$783.33 


$772 


$742 


$913.33 


$672 


$876 


$715 


$760 


$874.28 


$940 


$745 


$732 


$132 


$767.5 





45 



expense per teacher lying somewhere between $560-$599, five com- 
mon school districts having a total expense lying between $600- 
$639, etc. The right hand column sums up the data for the entire 
24 supervisory districts. It shows there was one district which 
spent as low an amount as that falling between $440-$479, while, 
on the other hand, there were seven districts which in 1920 spent 
over $1800 per teacher, practically four times as much. This points 
out the difference between the costs in certain districts of Suffolk 
County and certain districts of Delaware County, which counties 
may fairly represent for the time being the two extremes of money 
spent for the schools. A further examination of this last column 
will show that the largest number of districts spent between $640- 
$679, while almost as many districts spent between $680-$719, and 
$720-$759. It is to be noted, however, that there are a great many 
more districts spending more than $760 than there are districts 
spending less than $640. The average amount spent would, there- 
fore, be above $759. The median cost per teacher for the 24 dis- 
tricts (the cost of the 507th district when the 1013 are arranged in 
the order of their amounts) is $786.20, while the middle 50 percent 
of costs per teacher lies between $681.61 and $956. 

There are two striking facts which are apparent from merely a 
glance at this table: (1) that the total expenses per teacher of one- 
teacher schools vary greatly within each supervisory district, (2) 
that irrespective of this variation within the individual supervisory 
districts, amounting in practically all cases to 200 percent, there are 
great differences among the supervisory districts taken as wholes 
as to standards of expense. This is shown by the median costs 
given at the foot of the table for each of these supervisory districts. 
Above the medians are indicated the ranks of the various districts 
in this respect beginning with the lowest. This reveals the fact 
that the median cost of schools in Delaware No. 5 is not as much as 
half of the median cost in Suffolk No. 1. Along with Suffolk No. 1, 
a high ranking supervisory district, are the four districts of Monroe; 
while with Delaware No. 5 are Delaware No. 2, No. 3, No. 6 and 
Clinton No. 3; in the middle are found Otsego No. 1, Herkimer No. 
1, Wayne No. 2 and Tompkins No. 2. 

Thus it is evident that the standards of cost of rural schools in the 

46 



various parts of the State of New York vary to a considerable degree. 
Of this fact few are aware; especially is this true of the farmers 
who support them. Each community is apt to think that its 
schools are of as high standard as those in any other rural section 
of the State. Such data as this presented to farmers should demon- 
strate to them the important need of raising the standards in those 
sections of the State where they are so low. 

Distribution of Expenses 

In Common School Districts. — In the preparation of a budget 
for any enterprise in which expenses are fairly constant, as well as in 
judging of the efl&ciency of the financing of any enterprise, it is well 
to have as definite standards as possible in regard to the relative 
proportions that should be devoted to the various items. The data 
that have been gathered in this study should furnish the very best 
material for the determination of such standards for the rural 
schools based upon present practice. With this in mind, the percent- 
ages found in the basal percentage table. Table 59 (See Appendix) 
for the six principal items of expense, have been gathered together 
into combined distribution tables. The table for teachers' salaries, 
Table 7, is similar in form to that of Table 6. The column at the 
left gives the various classes of percentages of expense among which 
the percentages of the individual districts are distributed. At the 
bottom of each of these tables are given the median percentages for 
each of the various districts together with their ranks. The median 
percentage for the entire 24 districts and the lower and upper 
quartiles, which mark the limits of the middle 50 percent, are 
indicated. Tables for the other items of expense are shown in 
Tables 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65, found in the Appendix. It is obvious 
that while the median percentage may be taken as a fair index of 
the norm that governs budgets in rural schools, there must neces- 
sarily be expected a much wider degree of variation in rural schools 
than in the case of union free and city school districts. 

In Supervisory Districts. — Not only is there great variation 
within the districts of the various superintendents, which has just 
been referred to, but there are great differences among the super- 
visory districts themselves. Take any one of these districts and it is 

47 






O 
O 

g 

O 

§ 



8 



< ^ 

§ 

Vi 

t-l 

CO 



{/3 

8 

< 

H 
Pi 

o 

w 

< 
H 
O 

H 

O 



8 



a 

e2 



'S 
1 


I^iox 










aov 

r>.PO 


fONOoo 
o»opo 

fN CN ^ 


V5 






00 


3 -ON au^BAV 


: 






• *-* *-( 


POt>. 


t^ON^H 




NO 

OnOO 

fO'.HOO 


I -ON 3iiojgns 


»H 


• »^ 


«N <N 


»OTt«t^ 


1-H 


«H • • 




On 

5"S 


I -OM 3DU3JAVBq •;§ 






• *H 




.^ffj 


lOON 






00 

lOiHOO 


J -o^ o3as:^0 








• ^-H 


1-* tH . 


«H «H 


t>.t^vO 




voa>o 

CNtHOO 


Z -0^ oSaMSQ 








• 1-1 


1-H 1-H 


CS • 


f^vOPO 






X -ON OUBt^UQ 








»H • • 


•HCS-* 


i-( 


lO-^-H 






T -ojsi j3uii2ijaH 








: : : 


. .lO 


■*t rf 


«0«OfO 




NOiOff) 


X -0^ 9U39Jf) 








vH • 


•T-lfS 


<N ^ 


vOrt^OO 




NO 

foesw 


T -ON ai-^a 








: : : 


•fOVO 


NOO 






r*5 t^ 


e -OK uo:mnD 








: : : 


• -CN 


• vo 


©rO*H 




«soo»o 

ro^OO 


X 'o^ BnbnB:^nBq3 








: :^ 


• CO CN 


:^ 


CN NO C>< 




1 NO-^fO 

1 Tj^THOO 


£ 'o^ sui^idmox 








v-4 1-H 


cst>. cs 


vOt^ 


00NO*-4 




OOOnO 

T*< 00 


Z '0^ sui^idraox 






-- 


«H • 


• iH T-4 


^fO 


es fs rl< 




\ fO^OO 


X -o^i suT^iduiox 








; ! ! 


: :^ 


CO On 


vOCN<N 




fO»H00 


f 'o^ aojuop^ 








iHCS 


focsvo 


u^On 


in . . 




ff>>ONO 


f -OM aojuoj^ 








• r-i 


CSrMO 


>0<N 






^0000 


2 -0^ aojuop^ 








■ ^ITi 


t^fOfO 


lOO 


PO . . 




t^r*50N 
fO vo 


X 'OX aojuop^ 










T^vOf*5 


00 CM 


On^ ; 




00 

: 5*15 


9 •o|>i ajBMBpQ 










• • iH 


•r*5 


»oo»o 




: 1 5S!S 


g -ojsr aJBM^pa 










: [-^ 


•cs 






vo 
■^ CN Os 


t 'ojsi ajBMiBpa 








:"" 




■^ : 


lONOO 




1 CSCNfO 

• 1 lo^oo 


e -OM ajBMBpa 








: : : 


•cs 


lOOO -^ 




Of^O 
lOfNOv 


Z -0^ aJBAVBpa 








• »^ 


■^(N fS 


^to 


1-4 1-t 






X OM ajBMBpa 








1M »H • 


. .(N 


«NfO 


t^OOO 

1^ 1-H 




vo 
lOCNOO 




Percent 

of 

total expenses 


On 

On 

i 




OnO* 

ON ON 


40-44.99 

45-49.99 
50-54.99 


55-59.99 
60-64.99 
65-69.99 




80-84.99 
85-89.99 
90-94.99 


o* 


"5 


J4 


■4-> 

s 

s 
.2 
•a 

4) 

1^ 



48 



found to be high in certain respects and low in others. The question 
arises then whether or not there is any tendency for a high rank in 
one respect to go with a high rank in another respect. Of par- 
ticular interest is the question whether high total costs of schools 
are accompanied by high costs in any one or more items. In 
making this comparison it has been assumed that the median is the 
best measure of a district as a whole. These ranks, shown in Table 7 
and in Tables 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 given in the Appendix, are 
brought together for study in Table 8, the order for the arrangement 



Table 8. — Twenty-Four Supervisory Districts Ranked on the Basis of 
Median Total Expense Per Teacher and Correlated With the Rank- 
ing OF THE Districts According to Median Percents in Various Finan- 
cial Items ^ 



Districts ranked 

according to total 

expense per teacher 


Total expense 
per teacher 


Salaries of 
teachers per- 
cent 


Other expenses 

of instruction 

percent 


Wages of 
janitors 
percent 


Cost of fuel 
percent 


Cost of main- 
tenance 
percent 


Auxiliary 

agencies 

percent 


Delaware No. 5 . . . . 
Delaware No. 3 ... . 
Delaware No. 4 . . . . 

Clinton No. 3 

Delaware No. 6 . . . . 

Greene No. 1 

Delaware No. 2 . . . . 
Delaware No. 1 . . . . 
St. Lawrence No. 1 . 
Tompkins No. 3 . . . . 

Otsego No. 1 

Herkimer No. 1 ... . 

Wayne No. 2 

Tompkins No. 2 . . . . 
Tompkins No. 1 . . . . 

Ontario No. 1 

Erie No. 1 

Chautauqua No. 1 . . 

Oswego No. 2 

Monroe No. 3 

Monroe No. 4 

Monroe No. 2 

Monroe No. 1 

Suffolk No. 1 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 


24 
23 
12 
18 
22 
20 
17 
21 
11 
9 
19 
15 
10 
16 
13 
6 
7 

14 
1 
8 
5 
3 
4 
2 


7 

8 

17 

4 

11 

13 

5 

10 
2 

14 

1 

6 

18 

12 

19 

20 

24 

22 

3 

9 

21 

16 

15 

23 


4 
2 
1 
14 
3 

16 

17 

5 

9 

11 

13 

10 

21 

12 

15 

18 

19 

7 

8 

22 

20 

6 

23 

24 


2 
7 
5 

13 
6 
1 

14 
3 

12 

10 

9 

18 
22 
15 
11 
24 
19 
8 
4 
23 
16 
21 
17 
20 


5 

3 

1 

21 

4 

12 

10 

9 

8 

18 

6 

7 

17 
15 
14 
13 
20 
11 
24 
2 

16 
23 
22 
19 


1 
2 

13 

19 

4 

16 

12 

7 

23 

9 

17 

10 

8 

5 

6 

14 

15 

20 

3 

18 

24 

21 

22 

11 




r=-.70 


r = .52 


r = .63 


r = .66 


r = .61 


r = .54 



^ Spearman's Method of Rank Differences. 
49 



being furnished by the ranks in the table of total expense per 
teacher. This table not only enables one to make comparisons in a 
rough way by observing the relative ranking, but also furnishes the 
material from which we can determine the coefficients of correlation, 
expressing mathematically the varying degrees of closeness of corre- 
spondence between any two items of expense in all of the districts 
taken as a group. The figures at the bottom opposite the letter ^^ r " 
are the coefficients of correlation between the first column, the total 
cost per teacher, and each of the succeeding ones as determined by 
Spearman's Method of Rank Differences with proper transmuta- 
tion. For those not familiar with this statistical procedure it may 
be said that all possible correlation values lie between + 1.00 and 
— 1.00 the former indicating a perfect agreement in rank through- 
out from the lowest to the highest, and the latter, perfect inverse 
agreement with ranks exactly reversed in one respect from what 
they are in the other. Zero lies in the middle of the scale and indi- 
cates neither a direct nor an indirect correspondence, but a total 
lack of correspondence of any kind. This table shows an inverse 
correlation between total annual cost per teacher and the percent of 
expense for salaries of teachers, which means that in those districts 
where there is a low total annual cost for teachers, there is a high 
percentage for salaries of teachers and that where there is a high 
total cost per teacher there is low percentage for salaries of teachers. 
In fact, a coefficient of — 70 indicates a high inverse correspondence. 
This means that districts which spend but little give the largest 
proportions of their small amounts to teachers' salaries and cut 
down expenditures for other purposes. 

This statement is borne out by the coefficients for other items of 
expense indicated in Table 9 which are all positive, whereas that for 
teachers' salaries is negative. It would also seem from these coeffi- 
cients that there is a greater tendency to save in the items of fuel, 
wages of janitors, cost of maintenance, and for repairs, than for 
auxiliary agencies, which includes health, supplies and library books, 
and for other expenses of instruction, which includes educational 
supplies, books, etc. This conclusion is warranted by the fact that 
their coefficients of correlation are lower for these items than the 
others. 

50 



Table 9. — Twenty-Four Supervisory Districts Ranked on the Basis 
OF Median Total Expense Per Teacher and Correlated With the 
Ranking of the Districts According to Medians of Various Financial 
Items ^ 



Districts 
ranked ac- 
cording to 
total expense 
per pupil 

Delaware 

No. 5 

Delaware 

No. 3 

Delaware 

No. 4 

Clinton 

No. 3 

Delaware 

No. 6 

Greene 

No. 1 

Delaware 

No. 2 

Delaware 

No. 1 

St. Lawrence 

No. 1 

Tompkins 

No. 3 

Otsego No. 1 . 
Herkimer 

No. 1 

Wayne No. 2 . 
Tompkins 

No. 2 

Tompkins 

No. 1 

Ontario No. 1 
Erie No. 1 . . . 
Chautauqua 

No. 1 

Oswego No. 2 
Monroe No. 3 
Monroe No. 4 
Monroe No. 2 
Monroe No. 1 
Suffolk No. 1 . 



1^ ^1 




'-^ ^ 






o 




Total expen 
per teache 


O 00 


111 


m O 

P 


o 

in 
O 
U 


o «^ 


3 ^ 


1 


17 


6 


5 


3 


6 


2 


2 


22 


10 


3 


5 


4 


4 


3 


23 


16 


1 


2 


1 


12 


4 


2 


3 


4 


4 


15 


9 


5 


20 


9 


2 


6 


3 


7 


6 


9 


11 


14 


1 


21 


18 


7 


19 


8 


16 


19 


11 


14 


8 


24 


13 


6 


7 


9 


16 


9 


15 


2 


8 


23 


19 


23 


10 


13 


15 


13 


11 


17 


17 


11 


21 


1 


11 


16 


5 


3 


12 


14 


7 


10 


12 


16 


10 


13 


6 


17 


20 


14 


8 


6 


14 


12 


14 


12 


15 


12 


5 


15 


18 


22 


17 


18 


10 


1 


16 


8 


24 


15 


24 


13 


19 


17 


5 


23 


19 


13 


20 


15 


18 


10 


20 


7 


8 


7 


20 


19 


16 


4 


9 


9 


24 


13 


20 


4 


5 


23 


21 


2 


8 


21 


11 


21 


18 


20 


14 


24 


22 


7 


19 


21 


22 


22 


22 


23 


1 


12 


22 


10 


18 


21 


24 


3 


18 


24 


17 


23 


11 




r= -.69 


r = .45 


r = .64 


r = .57 


r = .51 


r = .42 



en Qi 



14 
20 
16 

1 
17 

5 

24 

21 

15 

22 
19 

12 

3 

10 

18 

13 

6 

9 

23 

4 

7 
11 

2 

8 
r=-.28 



^ Spearman's Method of Rank Differences. 
51 



Expenses per Pupil 
Another way of studying costs of schools is to compare costs per 
pupil in attendance. The difference between this method and the 

Table 10. — Expenses per Pupil in 1006 Common 











Supervisory districts 










*-i 


cs 


fO 


"* 


10 


NO 










Expenses 
per pupil 


1 


i 


d 


i 


6 


6 


d 


d 


CO 

d 


d 




<v 


(U 


OJ 


<v 


(U 


dj 


^ 


^ 


Z 


^ 




i^ 


>-l 


)!^ 


)>, 


i-< 


u 












a 


rt 


C3 






a 


S:^ 


i> 


d) 


S:| 




^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


p: 


^ 


2 


2 


2 


2 




^ 


rt 


03 


iS 


cd 


rt 


C 


C3 


c 


C 




"cD 


'cj 


ID 


'a 


% 


Ij 
















Q 


Q 


Q 


G 


Q 


Q 


^ 


^ 


^ 


S 


$20-24.99 




1 












1 


1 


25-29.99 


i 


. 














I 


1 


30-34.99 




i 




'2 


"i 


'2 


4 




2 


2 


35-39.99 




2 


'3 


3 


4 


2 


5 


3 


2 




40-44.99 


2 


2 


5 


4 


3 


1 


5 




5 


i 


45-49.99 


6 


5 


3 


3 


6 


2 


7 


4 


6 


4 


50-54.99 


1 


2 


4 


7 




3 


3 


3 


7 


6 


55-59.99 


2 


2 


1 


4 


'2 


6 


5 


4 


5 


5 


60-64.99 


4 


3 


4 




4 


4 


2 


8 


7 


4 


65-69.99 


3 


3 


3 


"4 


4 


4 


2 


2 


2 


2 


70-74.99 


5 


2 


1 


1 


2 


2 


2 


2 


1 


2 


75-79.99 


5 




4 


2 




4 


3 






1 


80-84.99 


2 


'2 


3 


3 




3 






'5 




85-89.99 


2 


3 


3 


2 


■4 


1 






1 


'2 


90-94.99 


2 


2 


3 






3 


• • 




3 


2 


95-99.99 


2 


2 


2 


1 


3 


3 






1 




100-104.99 


1 


2 












■*• 






105-109.99 


1 




'2 


"2 


i 


*2 








i 


110-114.99 


2 


'2 


2 


2 










i 


1 


115-119.99 






1 


1 


i 








• • 


2 


120-124.99 




2 


2 


2 












2 


125-129.99 


i 


2 




2 










i 




130-134.99 


2 
















, 




135-139.99 


1 




















140-144.99 


1 
















• • 




145-149.99 


1 






1 


2 












150-154.99 






















155-159.99 


"i 


, 




"2 


'2 












160-164.99 








2 




. . 










165-169.99 










•• 






•• 


•• 




170-174.99 






















175-179.99 






















180-184.99 






















185 and over 


"3 


'3 




"3 


i 


48 

17 

$70 


39 
2 

$48.9 








Total 


51 

21 

$76.5 


49 

24 

$82.7 


49 
20 

$75.6 


53 

16 

$69.3 


40 

14 

$65 


37 

11 

$62.8 


51 

4 

$56.5 


40 

7 

$60 


Rank 


Median cost 



First quartile $64.8; 



52 



cost per school unit as represented by the cost per teacher can be 
illustrated as follows: If a farmer desires to study the cost of culti- 
vating a field of corn, he might compare his cost this year with costs 

School Districts in the 24 Supervisory Districts 



Supervisory districts 




6 
B 

(2 


6 
Z 

m 

C 

'i 
e 

(2 


re 
6 


6 
Z 

cf 

i 


i 

c 

2 
c 

U 


1 


6 

1 


z 
e 

'Si 


1 
•2 


CN 

1 

a 




C 


6 

i 


6 

1 
5 


«N 

6 

1 


13 








• 


6 

7 
3 

5 

1 

1 
3 
3 

2 

2 

2 

i 


3 

'3 

1 
3 
4 

5 

1 

3 
4 

'5 
1 

• • 
1 
2 
2 
1 

'2 

'3 

1 

i 

i 

1 
2 


"2 
2 
3 

1 

3 
4 
5 
3 

6 

1 




1 

4 
7 
5 

4 
4 

1 

2 
1 
2 


. 


1 

3 
3 

3 
8 

2 
7 
3 

i 

2 

1 
2 

2 


■3 
4 

5 
2 
6 
2 

1 

3 

1 
1 

i 

1 

1 
1 


"1 

1 

4 

2 
4 
5 
5 

3 

1 
1 
4 
3 

3 
1 
1 

"2 

i 
i 




1 
3 

5 
3 
2 
3 

1 

3 

2 


2 
1 
3 

1 

8 
2 
3 
2 

1 

2 
4 
1 

i 

1 

*i 

i 

1 
1 

"i 
i 


• 


2 
1 

i 

1 
i 
2 

5 
2 


i 

1 
4 

4 

6 

2 
5 
5 

3 

1 
1 
2 
2 

2 
3 
1 
2 
2 

2 

1 

"i 
"3 


1 

"2 
3 

5 

2 
4 
3 

7 

3 

1 

'2 


'3 

7 

6 

4 
4 
1 
4 

"3 

"2 

2 

2 

i 

• • 


6 

8 

29 

50 

69 

91 
90 
79 
84 
61 

60 

45 
38 
42 
33 

31 
25 
20 
16 
15 

14 

11 

10 

8 

6 

10 
6 

10 
3 
5 

1 

5 

3 

22 


33 

18 

$73.5 


37 

10 

S62.5 


51 

22 
$76.8 


43 

9 

$62.4 


31 
1 

$43.5 


39 
6 

$58.7 


34 

5 
$57 


44 
12 

$64 


34 
13 

$65 


42 

23 

$80 


26 
19 

$75 


54 

15 
$69 


42 

8 

$60.7 


39 

3 
$54.3 


1006 
$49.9 



Third quartile $90.3 



S3 



of previous years. In this estimate he would include his own 
labor, that of his hired men, the cost of his seed, of repairs to his 
machinery, etc. Suppose that he found his cost per acre compared 
very favorably with the cost of his neighbors, should he then be 
satisfied with his study? It is readily seen that from a good business 
standpoint it is more important to find how the cost per bushel of 
corn that came off his field compared with the costs of his neighbors' 
for each bushel ojBf their fields, because his success in making money 
by farming depends more on the cost of each unit of product raised 
than upon each unit cultivated. So it is in every occupation, the 
cost per unit of product is far more significant than the cost of the 
unit of space or department utilized. 

The nearest approach to a unit of product of the school which is 
practicable for our present purpose is the average daily attend- 
ance for the year. It gives us the cost of educating one pupil every 
day throughout the entire year or, briefly, the cost of one year's 
schooling for one pupil. Some time we may be able to express our 
product in terms of units of arithmetic, reading, character, etc., 
developed during a year, but at present this is impossible. 

In Common School Districts. — The costs per pupil furnished 
on the basal tables similar to Table 58 (see Appendix) were brought 
together in combined distribution tables for each and all of the 24 
supervisory districts, one table for the total amount expended per 
pupil, which is given herewith. Table 10, and one for each of the 
more important items of expense. These Tables, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 
and 71 printed in the Appendix show even greater variation within 
the supervisory districts than was found to be true of the percent- 
age tables given above. It costs one district of Supervisory Dis- 
trict No. 1, Delaware County, 12 times as much as another to 
educate one pupil one year; in Tompkins Supervisory District No. 
2 it cost one district ten times as much as another. In other super- 
visory districts, on the other hand, such as Monroe Supervisory 
District No. 1 and Erie Supervisory District No. 1, the variation is 
much smaller. The cost in the district next to the highest in 
Monroe No. 1, is slightly more than double that of the lowest 
district, while in Erie Supervisory District No. 1, with the exception 
of three districts, the variation is not more than two and one-half 
times the cost of the low district. 

54 



o 

> 

W 

w 
W 
H 

g 
H 



i-5 
O 
O 

a 

o 
o 

a 

00 
ON 



H 

H 

1-5 

Q 

w 
o 

w 
> 



pq 
< 





l«;oX 


lOiO ooo 

P^l fO CN ■^ 


5^2^ 


00 

On 




i2 

o 

CO 

>> 

'> 

t-l 

S 


3 -ON 3UABM 


•00 '*<N >* 


^ : : : 


On 
fO 


-^ 


I -ON ^liojgns 


-^•^^ffsoO"^ 


vOvOfT)^ 


M 

Tf 




X -OM 3DU9JAVBT -^S 




cs • • . 


NO 
ID 


I 


T -oj^ o§9s:jo 


(NO'O'^CN 


CV) . . . 


SO 

CM 


fo 

00 

o 


3 -O^sl OS9MSO 


^ fSJ .... 




00 


X 'O^ OTXE^UQ 1 : 2 ^ ^ "^ 


-• : : : 


1 ;^ 


»o 


X -OM J3mT5iJ9H 


[ T-ilO»Ot^ to 


CS '-H • • 


1 5 


cs 


X 'O]^ 3U39J0 


^ cs ■^■^ 


00 




X -ojsL aug 


»-i "^ff; cs 00 


f>^ '-I . . 




V3 


e -oisi uo:jun3 




• • »-l . 


fo 


NO 


X '0^ Bnt)nB:»nBq3 


fc t^ fO 00 lo 


x^irHtN • 


5 




e -o]^ suT^tdmox 


roONiOOs-* 




g 


^-H 


Z -ojsi sui3iduiox 




1^ tH • • 






X -o^M sui3idraox 


^ OvOiD fN .... 


CO 




t -oisj aojuoj^ 




U^ fS »H • 


^ 


NO 


e -OM 90JUOH 


.-^IDt^ON 


*-iro f«g • 


lO 


o* 


2 •ojsl aojuoj^ 


.Ti^vOvOOO 


^ . . . 






X '0^ aojuop^ 


•-HrtOON 


O-*^ . 


% 




9 'O]^ ajBMBpQ 


r:t< ,-^ O »0 fO 


^-H . • • 






9 -ON aJBMBpa 


fOr>.t^ O cs 


- : : : 


O 


o 


t -O^i ajBMBpQ 


OOiOiOOOO 


: : : : 




^ 


e -oj^ ajBMBpa 


f/5 lO^ ^ 

fS -H ^ 


o 


O^ 


Z -OJSL 9JBAVBpa 


t^iOOst^-^ 


^^ : 




fo 


X 'O^I aJBMBpQ 


i/j 00 1^ t— c^ ° • • • 


On 


3 

6 




Average 

daily 

attendance 


0-4.99 

5-9.99 

10-14.99 

15-19.99 

20-24.99 


25-29.99 

30-34.99 

35-39.99 

40 and over 




C 

c 

.2 



55 



It is apparent, too, that there are variations in standards of total 
expense per pupil among the various supervisory districts each taken 
as a whole. The extreme districts are Clinton No. 3 with an aver- 
age annual cost per pupil of $43.50, and Delaware No. 2, $82.70. 
Delaware, as a county, ranks high in its costs per pupil, while Mon- 
roe ranks low. The districts of Herkimer No. 1, Ontario No. 1 and 
St. Lawrence No. 1 lie in the middle of the distribution, while Tom- 
kins County as a whole occupies the position mid- way between the 
median and the upper end. 

Causes for Variations in Costs, — The causes of this wide varia- 
tion obviously lie in the various combinations of the two variables- 
total expenses and average daily attendance. The unusual diver- 
sity in the former has been shown in connection with the total ex- 
penses per teacher, the latter is now to receive attention. The 
average daily attendance in the various districts in each of the 24 
supervisory districts has been brought together and the medians 
computed. These are shown in Table 1 1 . 

In a recent study. Dr. George M. Wiley of the State Department 
of Education, states that of the 8600 one- teacher rural schools 3611 
or 42 percent have an average daily attendance of ten pupils or 
less and then gives the number of schools of the entire State that 
have each average daily attendance up to and including ten as 
shown herewith. 

Average daily Number of 

attendance schools 

1 pupil 15 

2 pupils 52 

3 " 167 

4 " 259 

5 " ^ 392 

6 " 430 

7 " 556 

8 " 535 

9 " 612 

10 " 593 

These data are of the utmost importance. They indicate unu- 
sual waste and form the basis for many of the recommendations 
of this section of the Survey made in later chapters, particularly 
in Chapters VII, X, and XII. 

Table 12 for Delaware No. 2 shows the variety in the results ob- 

56 



Table 12. — Relationship of Total Expense Per Teacher, Cost Per Pupil 
AND Average Daily Attendance in Delaware County, Supervisory 
District No. 2 



District 


Total cost 
per teacher 


Cost 
per pupil 


Average daily 
attendance 


Hancock No. 8 


$671 
548 

1044 
936 
693 
937 
453 
955 
917 
839 
891 
622 

1004 
566 
696 
553 
703 

1088 
780 
748 
615 
844 

1091 

1092 
924 
599 
798 
711 
743 
655 
669 

1469 

1112 
725 

1224 

1262 
601 
607 
629 
506 
654 
549 
774 

1157 
666 
520 
746 
641 
762 


$22.70 

34.25 

37.13 

39.55 

43.31 

44.62 

45.30 

45.47 

45.85 

46.61 

48.16 

51.83 

51.96 

56.60 

58.00 

61.44 

61.56 

64.00 

65.00 

68.00 

68.33 

70.33 

74.39 

84.00 

84.00 

85.57 

88.66 

88.87 

91.87 

93.57 

95.57 

97.93 

101.13 

103.64 

112.72 

114.72 

120.20 

121.40 

125.80 

128.50 

130.80 

137.25 

154.80 

165.28 

166.50 

173.33 

248.66 

641.00 

762.00 


30 


Colchester No. 15 


16 


Hancock No. 18 


28 


Colchester No. 2 


23 


'' No. 19 


16 


No. 17 


21 


No. 11 


10 


'' No. 23 . . . 


21 


No. 5 


20 


Hancock No. 5 


18 


Colchester No. 12 


18 


Hancock No. 21 


12 


No. 16 


19 


Colchester No. 19 


10 


No. 26 


12 


Hancock No. 22 


9 


Colchester No. 14 


11 


Hancock No. 3 


17 


No. 24 


12 


Colchester No. 24 


11 


No. 8 


9 


Hancock No. 15 


12 


No. 9 


12 


" No. 23 


13 


No. 26 

Colchester No. 7 


11 

7 


Hancock No. 17 


9 


Colchester No. 27 


8 


No. 28 


8 


No. 1 


7 


No. 20 


7 


Hancock No. 19 


15 


No. 1 


11 


Colchester No. 4 


7 


Hancock No. 14 


11 


No. 11 


5 


Colchester No. 18 


5 


" No. 6 


5 


" No. 30 


5 


Hancock No. 7 


4 


No. 12 


5 


Colchester No. 13 


4 


Hancock No. 10 


5 


No. 6 


7 


Colchester No. 16 


4 


No. 22 


3 


Hancock No. 25 


3 


No. 2 


1 


No. 27 


1 



57 



tained from the combination of these two factors: total cost per 
teacher and average daily attendance — as well as the wide diver- 
gence among districts in the same town as regards the adequacy of 
the financial administration. The districts are arranged in order of 
the expense per pupil. It will be noted that the instance of lowest 
cost per pupil is caused by the combination of low cost per teacher 
with high average daily attendance. The highest cost per pupil is 
caused by a combination of median cost per teacher and low average 
daily attendance, while the case having the highest cost per teacher 
yields a cost per pupil just within the middle 50 percent by reason 
of a fairly large daily attendance. 

Table 13. — Correlation Coefficients: (a) Total Expenses Per Teacher 
AND Various Items of Expense Per Pupil in Average Daily Atten- 
dance, AND (b) Expenses Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance and 
Various Items or Expense Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance, in 
24 Supervisory Districts Included in Table 12 ^ 



Total expenses per 
teacher 

Expenses per pupil 
in average daily 
attendance 





u 


^a 


j^ 




<u 




-ZK 


expens 
tructio 
pupil 


'ZK^ 




^|-a 


Expen 
perpu 


rie 
ers 
upi 




-zt 


Cost 
mainten 
perpu 


■4-> 


Other 

of ins 

per 


^.1 


Cost 
per 


-.28 


-.69 


.45 


.64 


.57 


.51 




.86 


-.19 


-.45 


-.01 


-.18 



5 fc- 



«3 .^ 

•ri C a 
^ '^ :-, 



.42 



.29 



The coefficients of correlation given in Table 13 have certain 
significances in this connection. The ground has been prepared, by 
what has already been said, for a consideration of certain possible re- 
lationships that may exist between the various items of cost based 
on average daily attendance. It would seem from a study of these 
coefficients of correlation that the frequent combination of low at- 
tendance with low or median cost per teacher has produced a low 
negative correlation between the total amount spent and the 
amount expended per pupil. This view is strengthened by the 
rather high negative correlation between the total annual cost 
^ Spearman's Method of Rank Differences. 
S8 



and cost of teachers' salaries per pupil. Coordinate with this is 
the consideration that all of the other correlations are positive in 
a marked, although not to a high, degree. These positive correla- 
tions signify that if a small amount of money is at hand and if there 
is but a small number of pupils in attendance, expenses for janitors, 
maintenance, etc., are reduced to a minimum, and as a result the 
cost of teachers is apt to be out of proportion therewith. When 
we turn to a consideration of correlations between the total expense 
per pupil and the cost of teachers' salaries per pupil we find a direct 
correspondence due to the fact that salaries constitute a large pro- 
portion of the total expenses. The inverse correlations for the re- 
maining cost items, some of which are marked, and some of which 
are relatively low, bear out the conclusion reached in connection 
with the correlations on the line above, namely, that the small pupil 
schools which have high total costs per pupil and high costs per 
pupil for teachers' salaries save money through low costs for salaries 
of janitors, for libraries, for promotion of health and transporta- 
tion, and for supphes used in instruction. 

A correlation coefficient between the average daily attendance 
and the total expense per teacher has been worked out for the 
one-teacher common school districts in three supervisory districts, 
Delaware No. 1, Monroe No. 1 and Tompkins No. 1. The correla- 
tion chart shown in Table 14 serves as a graphic representation of 
the important fact that the low average daily attendance is gener- 
ally found in the low expense per teacher schools. The coefficient 
of correlation is + .75 which is higher than would be expected. The 
importance of this fact will be brought out in Chapter VII. 

Expenses in Union Free School Districts. — There are 81 
union free school districts, situated within the 24 supervisory dis- 
tricts set apart for special study, for w^hich satisfactory data were 
obtainable. Costs of conducting schools therein were analyzed 
in much the same way as those of the common school districts. It 
has been found that conditions in these union free school districts 
are similar in so many respects to those in the common school dis- 
tricts that it does not seem important to print the data in such 
minute detail. However, certain points of difference will be indi- 
cated. The following table — Table 15, total amount expended 

59 



per pupil — is given as typical of all union free school district 
tables. It may be observed that there are so few cases within each 
of the supervisory districts that the medians are not reliable and 
thus careful comparison between the various supervisory districts 

Table 14. — Relationship Between Average Daily Attendance and the 
Total Expense Per Teacher in the First Supervisory Districts of 
Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties Respectively 



Total ex- 
pense per 
teacher 


Average daily attendance 




0-4 


5-9 


10-14 


15-19 


20-24 


25-29 


30-34 


Total 


$1450 

1400 

1350 

1300 

1250 

1200 

1150 

1100 

1050 

1000 

950 

900 

850 

800 

750 

700 

650 

600 

550 

500 




2 
3 
1 
2 
1 


• 


1 
1 

4 

7 
8 
6 




i 

1 
1 

3 
2 

4 
9 

4 
5 
2 


1 

1 

2 
1 
5 
3 
2 
3 
2 


"i 

4 

*2 




1 

1 
1 

2 


1 

i 


*2 
1 

i 

*2 
3 
1 
5 
7 

14 

5 

8 

18 

16 

14 

10 

1 


Total 


9 


27 


33 


21 


10 


5 


3 


108 























Median of total expense per teacher $787 

Median of average daily attendance 12.7 

r = + .748 



cannot be satisfactorily made. The other distribution tables for 
cost per pupil as well as those for percentages are very similar in ap- 
pearance to this one. Our comparisons are, therefore, limited to 
the union free school districts as a whole. In doing this we shall as- 

6o 



sume that these 81 union free school districts fairly represent the 
645 union free school districts throughout the State, just as it 
has been assumed that the 1013 common school districts represent 
fairly the 9644 common school districts. 

Table 15. — Expenses per Pupil in 81 Union Free School Districts in 
THE 24 Supervisory Districts 





Supervisory districts 


Expenses 
per pupil 


1 

a 

Q 
i 

• . 
1 


6 

1 

Q 
1 

i 

■ 

• • 

2 


6 
Z 

Q 

1 

1 

■ 
2 


6 

s 

2 

i 

1 

4 


1 
1 

Q 
"i 

2 


o 
6 

1 
1 
Q 

i 

*i 

. . 

2 


d 

z 

e 

c 
o 

i 

'2 

1 
4 


d 

s 

c 


5 


d 

s 

c 


i 

1 


d 



i 
1 

1 
3 


d 

.s 

IS 
p. 
6 

H 

1 

"i 
2 


d 

CO 

C 

1 

E 

e2 

"i 

1 

1 

3 


CO 

d 

CO 

.s 

'i2 
ft 


H 

i 

i 

2 


d 

cr 
,3 

-4-> 

1 
2 


d 



•S 


1 

1 

i 

1 

i 

5 


1 

1 

i 

1 

i 

4 


1 

c 



1 

1 

3 


d 
Z 

M 
u 

(V 

X 

i 
1 
i 

. . 
3 


i 



a 

c 


i 

2 

3 


1 



1 



i 
i 

2 
4 


1 
1 

;; 
3 


d 

0) 

u 

c 

1 

i 
2 

1 

i 

5 


d 
Z 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 
2 

1 
1 

i 

1 

13 


d 
Z 

1 

1 

1 

3 


13 


$25-29.99 
30-34.99 
35-39.99 
40-44.99 
45-49.99 

50-54.99 
55-59.99 
60-64.99 
65-69.99 
70-74.99 

75-79.99 
80-84.99 
85-89.99 
90-94.99 
95-99.99 

100-104.99 
105-109.99 
110-114.99 
115-119.99 
120 and over 


i 

4 
8 

8 

13 

11 

9 

6 

9 
3 

2 
2 
3 


Total 


81 



Median expense $62.90 



Cost of Schools in Villages under Superintendents and 

Cities 

This study does not concern itself with costs of schools in cities 
and references that are made herein to such costs are simply for 
the purpose of comparing them with the rural schools. The follow- 
ing table — Table 16 showing the total expenses per pupil in first-, 
second- and third-class cities, and villages under superintendents — is 

6i 



given as typical of the tables that have been prepared in order to 
make these comparisons in proper form. Similar distribution 
tables have been made for each item of expense per pupil and also 
for percentage distributions for cities. 



Table 16. — Expenditures Per Pupil in 


First-, Second- and Third-Class 


Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 












Villages 




Expenses 


First-class 


Second-class 


Third-class 


under 


Total 


per pupil 


cities 


cities 


cities 


superin- 










tendents 




$0- 4.99 












5- 9.99 












10-14.99 




' 








15-19.99 












20-24.99 












25-29.99 












30-34.99 












35-39.99 






i 




*i 


40-44.99 






1 




1 


45-49.99 






2 


3 


5 


50-54.99 






13 


8 


21 


55-59.99 




i 


8 


6 


15 


60-64.99 




1 


14 


12 


27 


65-69.99 


1 


1 


1 


6 


9 


70-74.99 


1 




5 


5 


11 


75-79.99 




2 


2 


1 


5 


80-84.99 






2 


1 


3 


85-89.99 




*i 






1 


90-94.99 












95-99.99 


*i 






i 


2 


100 and 












over 








3 


3 


Total 


3 


6 


49 


46 


104 


Median ex- 












pense 


$72.50 


$70 


$59.68 


$62.50 


$61.66 



Comparison of Costs in Common School Districts and in 
Other Classes of Districts 

Table 17 shows data relative to the amount expended per pupil in 
the three classes of districts. The figures in the columns give the 

62 



Table 17. — Expenses Per Pupil in 1006 Common and 81 Union Free School 
Districts and 104 Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 



Expenses per pupil 


Common 
school 


Union free 
school 


Cities and 
villages under 


Total 




districts 


districts 


bupciin- 
tendents 




$20- 24.99 


6 






6 


25- 29.99 


8 




. . 


8 


30- 34.99 


29 






29 


35- 39.99 


50 


i 


i 


52 


40- 44.99 


69 


4 


1 


74 


45- 49.99 


91 


8 


5 


104 


50- 54.99 


90 


8 


21 


119 


55- 59.99 


79 


13 


15 


107 


60- 64.99 


84 


11 


27 


122 


65- 69.99 


61 


9 


9 


79 


70- 74.99 


60 


6 


11 


77 


75- 79.99 


45 


9 


5 


59 


80- 84.99 


38 


3 


3 


44 


85- 89.99 


42 


2 




45 


90- 94.99 


33 


2 




35 


95- 99.99 


31 


3 




36 


100-104.99 


25 






26 


105-109.99 


20 






21 


110-114.99 


16 






16 


115-119.99 


15 






16 


120-124.99 


14 






14 


125-129.99 


11 






11 


130-134.99 


10 






11 


135-139.99 


8 






8 


140-144.99 


6 






6 


145-149.99 


10 






10 


150-154.99 


6 






6 


155-159.99 


10 






10 


160-164.99 


3 






3 


165-169.99 


5 






5 


170-174.99 


1 






1 


175-179.99 


5 






5 


180-184.99 


3 






3 


185 and over 


22 


*i 




23 


Total 


1006 


81 


104 


1191 






Median expense 


$64.82 


$62.95 


$61.66 


$63.95 


First quartile 


49.9 


54.5 


54.5 


51.03 


Third quartile 


90.3 


75.4 


69.44 


86.4 



63 



number of districts that have a cost per pupil lying between the 
limits of the class intervals in the left hand column. The median 
costs per pupil are of the greatest significance. They show that the 
costs per pupil in the common school districts of the State are on the 
whole higher than those of the union free school districts, and that 
these in turn are higher than the costs per pupil in cities. Diagram 6 
also reveals in a striking manner the fact that there is a large number 



Jximber of school districts 



Dollars 

per 

pupil 

20-24 

25-29 

30-34 

35-39 

40-44 

45-49 

50-54 

55-59 

60-64 

65-69 

70-74 

75-79 

80-84 

85-89 

90-94 

95-99 
100-104 
105-109 
110-114 
115-119 
120-124 
125-129 
130-134 
135-139 
140-144 
145-149 
150-154 
';155-159 
160-164 
165-169 
170-174 
175-179 
lSO-184 
1-05 and over 



Common 



6 

8 
29 
50 
69 
91 
90 
79 
84 
61 
60 
45 
38 
42 
33 
31 
25 
20 
16 B 
15 ■ 
14 ■ 
!!■ 
10 ■ 

SB 

6B 
10 ■ 

em 

10 B 
3B 
5fl 
II 

5B 

3B 

22 S 




Union 


City and 


Free 


Village 


11 


11 


4H 


11 


8IBI 


5H 


8BB 


2lHBHHi 


13BBH 


15HBBi 


llBHi 


P.7BH^^ 


9HB 


9HB 


6 Bl 


11 BIB 


$■■ 


&m 


3B 


3B 


21 


11 


21 




3B 


21 




11 




11 



II 



II 



Diagram 6. — Expenses per pupil in 1006 common and 81 union free school 
districts, and 104 cities and villages, 1919-20, illustrating Table 17 



of rural districts which pay more for their educational product than 
do the most expensive cities. From this it is clear that the most ex- 
pensive education in New York State is obtained in the rural schools 
and that these excessive costs are found in at least one-eighth of the 
common school districts. On the other hand, it is also true that 
some of the least expensive education is furnished in the common 
school districts, for in approximately four percent of these districts 
education costs less than in the city of the lowest rank. 

64 



It is surprising that this latter percentage is so low, when the 
small total expense per teacher is taken into account. More will 
be said upon this point later on. Tables 72-77 inclusive (printed in 
the Appendix) give similar comparative distribution tables for vari- 
ous items of expense. 

These tables taken as a whole show that, except in the item of 
teachers' salaries, the lowest costs per pupil are in the common school 
districts, and the highest costs are in the city districts. They also 
indicate that the range in the costs of the common school districts 
is wider than that in the cities. Another striking fact is the limited 
range in the union free schools. 



Table 18. — Percent of Total Expenses for Teachers' Salaries in 1006 
Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School Districts, and 59 
Cities 



Percent of 
total expenses 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities 


Total 


20-24.99 
25-29.99 
30-34.99 
35-39.99 
40-44.99 
45-49.99 

50-54.99 
55-59.99 
60-64.99 
65-69.99 
70-74.99 

75-79.99 
80-84.99 
85-89.99 
90-94.99 
95-99.99 


1 

i 

3 
2 
8 

16 
29 

54 
72 
79 

139 
203 
256 
138 

5 


1 

i 

3 

14 
29 

24 
9 


1 
2 
1 


3 


7 
8 
1 


1 

i 

4 

2 
8 

19 

40 

84 

104 

109 

163 
212 
256 
138 

5 


Total 


1006 


81 


59 


1146 






Median percents 


82.43 


73.7 


63.05 


80.89 



An analysis of the percentage distribution of expenses in these 
three different classes of districts is presented in detail in six tables. 
Table 18, for teachers' salaries is presented herewith; the tables 
5 65 



for the other items, identical in form, may be found in the Appendix 
as Tables 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82. These taken as a whole show a 
similarity to the cost per pupil tables in that, with the exception of 
teachers' salaries, the common school districts spend a lower pro- 
portion of their school money for each item of expense, while the 
cities pay the highest proportion. 

Furthermore these tables are like those of the cost per pupil tables 
in that the range of distribution of percentages in the common school 
districts is, in most cases, much wider than the spread of the distri- 
butions of the union free school districts and the villages and cities 
combined. 

Since it was desirable to bring together all of these significant 
facts, two tables were prepared. Numbers 19 and 20, the first dealing 
with the cost per pupil and the second with percentage distributions. 
These tables are constructed alike. They show in the first place the 
medians of the distributions, and the middle points between the 
medians and the extreme cases in each of the distributions known 
respectively as the first quartile point and the third quartile point. 
The next column shows the difference between these two. The last 
column gives the coefficient of deviation which enables us to com- 
pare all of the items with each other as regards the amount of devi- 
ation. This coefficient is obtained by the formula ^ in which Q 
signifies one-half of the difference between the upper and lower 
quartile points, commonly known as 2Q, while M represents the 
median. The larger the coefficient the more varied is the distribu- 
tion from the midpoint. These coefficients confirm the observa- 
tions made above as to range of distribution. 

Deductions to be Drawn from these Facts as Presented 
The excessive cost of the product of the rural schools as compared 
with that of the schools in union free school districts, cities and 
villages is sufficient cause for an inquiry as to the location of the 
waste and the means of its eradication. Broadly speaking, it may 
be found either in the way in which the State has divided itself up 
into local districts for the conduct of the schools, or in the admin- 
istration of the schools as thus organized. 

The first potent fact is that while rural schools cost most per pupil 

66 











1 


1 




C C3 








CJ o 








;i.2 


»o 


c^ 




— < 'J* fM O* fO O <NJ 


O 




^ fo r^ fc CO fo T-( 






g^ 


* •...». 


• 




cj-o 






t) -JJ 


--v! O^OO OnpO r^ vO 


O 


in 


•a >.£ 


00 t^ Tf Cn PC ^ -^ 




bO 


'^ii. o 


00 ^ »-( ^^ lO 


fO 




s*g 


6^ ^ 


^ 


c; 


00 U-; r^ oc t^ Tji 


CM 


•a 


■*-» r^ 


lO i-^ 0\ CO '!*' ^ lO 


o 


c 


es 


lO '-H C-1 CN »-( T.i^ r*i 


rt< 


a 


E§ 


PO ID 


.,—4 




4^ 


m^ 




C 






<u 


TflOt^O-r- "^ 


X 


u 


•HS 


r^ lO "*fO00-H Tf 


'-I 




•-J i-t 


Tf fD -* TjH CS fS Cv 


f>. 




^ 01 


Tf VO 


^— < 




H :3 


^ 


4^ 




o* 






c 


rH OOfOOC ONO 


O 




C3 


Tf vOioro ov too 


■<* 




•T3 


0\ fs] ro ro T-i T- ^ 


ir> 




0) 


fO vO 


v-i) 




^ 


4*a 


^ 




c c 








^ 2 










ro ^ OJ « <N ro NO 


On 




^ •* <N fc r- NO -p^ 


C 




<v > 


. ••«... 






o a^ 








cj-a 






a; *->. 


t^ ro CN 00 -^r^oo 


O 




Middl 

fifty 

percen 


IT) TMor^-'t-HOO 


o 


t4-l 


(sj ^^ PO CN ^ O 
4§= 




a; 


O lO Tf X O Ti fO 


to 


e: 




f<5 C »0 IC 00 >0 u^ 


o 


o 


S2t: 


O '- cs r-j "^ 


»-* 




Eg 


5 


ii^ 


a; 


ro 00 NO ^O t^ CN T-* 


X 




'25 


ON -^ O 00 CN t^ ■'ti 


'+< 




•^ >-i 


CN CS -^lOfC -H to 


CO 




^ c« 


lO t^ 


T-< 




H 3 


4^ 


^ 




cr 






c 


fO ^ ^ ^ t^ (N lO 


t->i 




C3 


t^ vOro<NvOCNOv 


t-- 




'O 


O ^pr, rf rH fN 


^ 




S 


Tt NO 


CN 




^ 


^ 


^ 




C G 








^ o 


ro 








O QOro-^ O-H 


t^ 




fO lO VO ■* t^ ^ ^ 


»- ! 




0^ > 


* * ^ 






O 0^ 








u-^ 






a; +j 


•^ lO l^ CN t^ T-^ I-* 


Ov 




l^i 


rj^ t-- 0\ O^ OnO ■<^ 


CO 




O »-•»-< CS CN '-i O 


■^ 


8 


§■=^1 


fO ^ 
4^ 




a 


f<5 •.-H lOOO to 


^ 




-M^S 


tr> On l>- ^ Tf ON 


VO 


C 


£S 


On fS • 0> 


— ( 


E§ 


„ . ^ 




S 
o 


o- 




4^ 


(U 


Tf vO(M r^NOt^ 


o 


U 


•H'-H 


t-~ VO I--. rH 0\ r^ OT) 


o 




'3 *-• 


O CSCNiO<N^O 


\0 




^ rf 


NO ON 


to 




^ E 


^ 


Ov 




O" 




^ 


s 


OvO 00»O T^i CN 






.S 


T-< "^lo ■^ 00 ooco 


CN 




73 


O T-<^fC ^ 


NO 




o; 


»0 NC 


X 




S 


^ 








• G 












£^1::; 




a 








S o 


o • c D 5 


^ 








O <D 


^ . (U c o. 


c 








CO CO 

0) c 


•s^-Sgife 


Ku 






ies of t 
r expe 
uction 
s of ja 
of f ue 
of mai 
iary a 
nsesp 


_ o 

si 






Salar 

Othe 

str 


Wage 
Cost 
Cost 
Auxil 
Expe 


^ 





C/2 

O 

> 

O 

O 
H 



Qo 



O 

u 



Hi ^ 



C/3 O 

P5 



H 



o 
w 

< 





^c 






w o 












Sti 


-* CN '*"«*' X ■^ 




^.2 


O CO ^ CN CN CO 




^ > 






o <y 






CJ'C 




V *-> 












Midd 

fifty 

percei 


NO CO X (N CO 




oc) 0C3 r-NO q t-; 

to <N ^CN CN y-* 


V 




-t-> 




r\ x-^ r^ CO CN 


u 




CO Ov -* On no y^ 




E§ 


O CN to CO CN CN 




NO 




D* 




a 






T3r3 


X lO to to 




>-i -i-> 


-^ X XO NO X 




J=! 03 


NO to NO NO Tf CO 




H = 


VO 




cr 




5 


to t^ CN ■r-1 CO Ov 




13 


O CO O -^ to r^ 




C^ 


CO <* NOtO CO fN 




^ 


NO 




.4-> 






c c 






a; o 












u -^ 


lO »H ^ to l>- 




5£.2 


O '^ CN CO VO X 




OJ > 






oji 






o-a 




O +J 






^ >>s 


Tt< r^ NOO CO VO 






rt* ^ ^^ ■■-J !>. X 
t-^ CN CN "* CO* CN 


a 

4m 


^ a 




<v 


X 








c 


m -u 


^ fO •«-' »0 CN O 
<N t^ fNT^ lO O 


o 


E§ 


c 


O ^ -^Tt* ^ 


^ 


C 


t^ 


o 






•^.'=: 


lo r>.»o «o r^ 




•« -u 


vO Ov CO CN CN X 




^ ct 


t^ CO OX »0 CN 




H 3 


!>. 




c 




r- 






5 


Tt< to »o to •* 




-o 


i>. \o CN Th X vo 




(U 


CO CN lO NO CN '-I 




s 


t^ 




c c 






a o 








X On-^ On >* 




o 00 "^f*^ *>: f^ 




o 0) 






u-^ 




(D -t-> 




_l 


Middl 

fifty 

percen 


O to -^CN "^ ^ 


o 


13.3 

2,0 

2.8 
3.3 

4.4 

1.9 


0) 




o 


-u 1^ 


Tti CN CO (N 


s 


2t: 


■^ «* ^ lO . »o 


rj 


;- cJ 


■^ ^co • 


C3 


fe 3 


t>. 


o 


C 




u 


(U 






'O.':: 


^ t>- r^ ^ ^ ^ 






Tj< Tt OvX •'f ''t 




^ <a 


t^ CN fOvO "* CN 




H S. 


X 




c? 




c5 


CO X X Ov "^ On 




•s 


Tf CN CO ^ CN CN 




CS -^ CNIO -rH -^ 




s 


iXi 






CO * 1 ! • i ! cj ! '. 






u • a )r. . o 






^ ■■Zi^\^^ -s 






eac 

s o 
rce 
ors 

rce 
ten 

nci 






Salaries of t 

percent 

Other expense 

struction pe 
Wages of janit 

cent 

Cost of fuel pe 
Cost of main 

percent . . . . 
Auxiliary age 

percent 











67 



they cost least per teacher. The median cost in the common school 
districts included in this study is $64.82, in the city and villages, 
$61.66. The average cost in the city schools of the State is $70.14. 
On the other hand the median cost per teacher in common school 
districts is $786.20 and in city school districts $1540. The average 
cost per teacher in the common school districts is $982.73, and in 
city school districts, $1375.96. The differences in enrolment per 
teacher in these two classes of districts are sufficient in themselves, 
as was shown in the earlier part of this chapter, to give these strik- 
ing contrasts. But this description does not reveal all of the sig- 
nificant facts. In the vast majority of cases the lower the salary 
paid, the poorer the instruction received by the pupils. There is 
thus a great difference in the quality of the product as well as the 
quantity of the product. In other words, the rural school pays the 
most and gets the least in quantity and the poorest in quality for the 
money that it spends. 

But these figures reveal additional facts. Teachers' salaries, al- 
though small, consume a larger proportion of the annual budget 
in rural school districts than in cities. This means that the pro- 
portion of the total costs going for needed equipment and supplies 
is smaller in the rural districts than in the city schools, which fact is 
confirmed by the percentage tables above. Thus the rural school 
pupil has not only a poorer teacher from whom to learn, but poor 
tools and poor supplies and equipment with which to work. The 
rural schools also spend less for the maintenance of buildings, and 
for such auxiliary agencies as libraries and promotion of health. 
In other words, the rural school plants and their surroundings are 
the poorest of all the schools of the State. From every point of 
view they pay the most for what they receive and obtain in return 
the poorest quality of product. 



63 



CHAPTER V 



VALUATIONS 

THE valuation of the property taxable for school purposes 
determines the ability of a local district to support its own 
school or schools. In New York State only real and personal 
property are taxable for local support of schools, as will be seen 
from Table 21, giving the assessed valuation of both real and per- 

Table 21. — The Assessed Valuation of Real Estate and Personal 
Property and Their Relationship in a Number or Typical Towns and 
Counties 



Cities 


Assessed value 
of real estate 


Assessed value 

of personal 

property 


Percent 


Delaware 

Bovina 


$540,681 

2,384,992 
841,691 
626,860 

2,535,228 

1,720,437 
317,585 

5,060,403 
833,410 

6,823,410 
2,461,642 
7,003,660 
1,682,900 
2,364,592 
1,896,355 
3,135,430 
2,907,850 

883,640 

598,443 

1,741,775 

15,217,077 

753,995 

2,496,479 
2,263,110 

885,855 


$45,612 

95,500 
54,350 

2,400 

36,600 

550 

2,000 
14,350 
30,346 

5,600 

19,500 
10,350 
10,000 
2,500 
76,200 

4,500 

3,500 

250 

27,250 

630 


08 


Delhi (including Delhi vil- 
lage) 


04 


Meredith 


06 


Tompkins 

Sidney 

Hancock 


.003 

.01 

0003 


Masonville 


006 


Walton 


002 


Andes 


03 


Monroe 

Brighton 




Penfield 

Irondequoit 

Clarkson 


.002 
01 


Rush 


004 


Gates 

Chili 


.005 
0007 


Henrietta 


005 


Tompkins 

Caroline 


005 


Enfield 




Lansing 


002 


Ithaca City 




Danby 




Dryden (including Dryden 

and Freeville villages) . . . 

Groton 


.001 
.01 


Newfield (Newfield village) 


.0007 


Carried forward 


67,977,500 


441,988 





69 



Table 21. — The Assessed Valuation of Real Estate and Personal 
Property and Their Relationship in a Number of Typical Towns and 
Counties — Continued 



Cities 


Assessed value 
of real estate 


Assessed value 

of personal 

property 


Percent 


Brought forward 

Chautauqua 
Arkwright 


$67,977,500 

331,650 

24,067,976 

3,181,945 

697,456 
4,396,718 

18,328,959 

175,211 

2,071,245 

65,090 

7,459,925 

4,944,156 

13,737,589 

5,693,889 

5,670,065 

4,816,390 

1,121,052 


$441,988 

183,950 
57,750 

5,800 
170,200 

250 

8,200 

37,800 

950 

236,675 

159,150 

863,458 

138,100 

114,250 

87,700 

300 




Jamestown 


.007 


Sheridan 


.01 


Clinton 
Mooers 


.008 


Plattsburg 




Erie 
Lackawanna 


.03 


Greene 
Ashland 


.04 


Coxsackie 


.01 


Halcott 


.001 


Herkimer 

Little Falls 


.03 


Ontario 

Canandaigua 


.03 


Oswego 
Oswego 


.06 


Otsego 

Oneonta 


.02 


St. Lawrence 
Oedensburs: 


.02 


Suffolk 

Riverhead 


.01 


Wayne 
Huron 


.0002 






Total 


$164,736,816 


$2,446,521 


.015 







sonal property in all of the towns of Delaware, Monroe and Tomp- 
kins Counties and from some one town in each of the other super- 
visory districts, the amount of personal property actually assessed 
is negligible, namely, .015 percent. Personal property is not assessed 
unless it is reported by the owner, and it is almost the universal 
custom for owners not to report it. Hence the burden of taxa- 
tion for local support of schools falls almost entirely upon real 
estate. The assessment of property upon which the school tax is 
based is made by the town assessors. That inequalities in as- 

70 



sessment of properties within the same towns commonly exist 
is evident from the statements made by farmers and citizens 
generally. 

Similar disparity exists among the towns when each is taken as 
a imit. Certain towns are assessed at very low valuations, while 
others are assessed at high valuations. This difference has been 
so forcibly brought to the attention of the people of New York State 
that they have established a special Tax Commission. Its field 
force visits each county every other year. Its members confer with 
county officers and town supervisors and from an examination of 
recorded deeds and of the assessment rolls obtain the relationship 
between sale and assessed values. On the basis of what is learned 
from this data and from conferences regarding them they establish 
an equalization rate in terms of percent of true valuation. Usually 
within a two-year period there is a sufficient number of sales to 
make a fair comparison possible between these two items, especi- 
ally when information thus gained can be supplemented by county 
and town officers. 

Equalization of Assessed Valuations by the State Tax 

Commission 

The results of the work of this field force and of members of the 
Tax Commission are pubHshed annually in the Report of the State 
Tax Commission and are used by the state officers in apportioning 
the state taxes levied by the Legislature among the various coimties 
of the State, for it is not the practice in New York State in the levy- 
ing of a state tax to direct the local authorities to levy a tax of a 
certain number of mills, but rather to direct these officers to levy a 
tax which will bring into the State certain amounts of money. 
What these amounts of money are is determined by the Tax Com- 
mission after the taxes have been equalized through the application 
of the rates of assessment as determined above. Thus, when the 
Legislature levies a mill and a half tax it knows the exact amount it 
will bring in since the total amount of the Staters valuation has 
been determined upon an equalized basis. The amount that each 
local community will have to raise is in the same proportion of the 

71 



total tax as the equalized valuation of its property is of the total 
equalized valuation of the property of the entire State. 

A Unit of Measure of Equalized Valuations 

It is obvious that districts not only vary in their equalized valua- 
tions but also differ considerably among themselves as to the size 
of the school which it is necessary for them to support. It is pos- 
sible for each of two school districts to have a valuation of $200,000, 
one of which has but one teacher to employ while the other has four. 
The latter district has, therefore, but one-fourth the abiUty to 
support schools that the former has (assuming that all other taxation 
matters are equal). It becomes necessary, therefore, in such a 
study as this to reduce all valuations in the State to some common 
denominator which will eliminate the factor of size of schools 
maintained by the various districts. The unit chosen for this pur- 
pose by the Survey is the number of teachers. This method has 
two advantages: (1) The salaries of teachers amount to from 60 to 
70 percent of the total expense in cities and from 70 to 85 percent 
in rural districts. (2) There is a close relationship between the 
number of teachers in a particular school and the number of units 
or classes that compose it. It is, therefore, the best measure for the 
size of a school system. 

Relationship of Assessed Valuations to Equalized 

Valuations 

The following table, Table 22, will show the relationship between 
the assessed and the true valuations of property taxable for school 
purposes in three supervisory districts: Delaware No. 1, Monroe 
No. 1, and Tompkins No. 1. It shows, for example, that of those 
districts which were assessed at $40,000, one had a true valuation of 
$40,000, one of $50,000, two of $60,000, one of $70,000, two of 
$100,000 and one of $120,000. The coefficient of correlation is 
unusually high, + .96 according to Pearson. It will be noticed that 
the median assessed valuation is approximately $50,000 while that 
of the true valuations is $85,000, which means that the assessed valu- 
ations tend on the whole to be near 60 percent of the true valuations. 

72 





"3 

3 


t^fOCSOO CM CS Tf 1-H ^-1 


cs »-tfCfC r* 


CM 


(NVCOO 






i 

c 
> 

(U 

< 


000*009$ J^AQ 






(N 










-000*09^$ 






- 


'^ 








-ooo*oot$ 






- 


*H • ■ • 








-ooo*09eS 






^-( 


'^ 








-ooo*ooe$ 






cs 


cs 








-000*092$ 






•* 










-000*002$ 






fO 










-000*061$ 






- 


^~^ 








-000*081$ 






s 




cs 










-000*OZT$ 


• • • y^ • 




: : : : : 




T^ 


-000*091$ 






-- 


^^ 








-000*091$ 


1 


•«* 






I 






-ooo*oti$ 




<>1 


tH »-H 




I 






-ooo'oeT$ 




CM 


»-H »H 




1 






-000*021$ 


»H 




- 










-000*011$ 




-- 


'^ 




-000*001$ 


1 


rf> 






1 




V 1 


-000*06$ 










- 


"^ 












-000*08$ 


• T-l • • ^— 1 


T-H • • t-^ • 


cs • • • • 


: : : : : 





-000*Oil$ 










CM 














-000*09$ 




• ^ -CNfO 


• tH • • 


: : : : : 


t>. 


-000*09$ 






h-- : 









»-< »— I 






-000*0f-$ 


• . • . UBipaj^ . • 


• -T-i -CM 




•■.-1 CN •^ ^ • • • • 


00 


-ooo'oe$ 






. J^fO^vO 


1-1 tH • • • 


fl 










-000*02$ 






fC ^ cs • • 


'l^ 




10 fj 






-000*01$ 






vOOvT^ • • 


vO 










000*01-0$ 




" 


fO 












1^ 


Over $400,000 
350,000 
300,000 
250,000 
200,000 

190,000 
180,000 
170,000 
160,000 
150,000 


140,000 
130,000 
120,000 
110,000 
100,000 


1 


80,000 
70.000 
60,000 
50.000 


40.000 
30,000 
20,000 
10.000 
0- 


s 
^ 



73 



in 

o 

H 

w 

w 

H 



o 
o 

w 

o 
o 

u 



::::^Q 

o 



w 
w 

u 
< 
w 
H 

P4 

w 

o 

> 

Q 
W 

< 

c 

W 






C/3 



©O^'-'t^"^ OOt^r^^iO fSa'-^lOfS csoot^oot>. 



2; 'o^ sui3idiuox 



• fo cvjcsioiofs fscs^eS'H ^po •■»-< 



X 'o^ su|5iduiox 



fOCSCS VO "«t fO »-H CM CS(N»-4 •'.H • -fO 



t 'o^ dojuoy^ 



•^CStHCS .t1<^tH 



£: -o^i aojuoj^ 



^ .p<5^^^ ^^p/J^CNJ 



3 -oj^ aojuojv 



oq^T-iio nfCPO»-) • 



X -ojsi aojuojY 



9 -o^ ajBMiepa 


• • r^J cs vo 


rh-^iOTfcS 


r^ T^ tH tH «H 


^(M^ . . 


5 -o^ ajBMBpa 


. • -rcfO 


-^rffOfCfO 


fr> .fsjcv,^ 


. .PO • • 



t 'O^ 9JBMBPQ 



•lOPO I^thvOvO^ ^»-tf*5rOfO ■* • »-< iH 



£ -OJSI ajBMBpa 


• •CV)Ti<VO 


t^ CS rf .NO 


?S CS lO »H • 


T-l CS »-l 1-1 • 


Z -OM aiBAVBpa 


.lOrt^eCPO 


'^r^rOfO'* 


CS *-l(M (N »H 


tH^ . .PO 


X -OJSI SJBMBpa 


"* -OOOv 


rfvOrt<THTH 


^ -(N-pHfO 


1^ »-^ • »-( • 



2 

I 



0\ Oi Ov Ov On 
0\ O* O* Ov On 
On On O* O^O^ 
0> On O* 0> 0» 
J »M CN ro •^ 



0> O* Oi On On 
^ On On On On 
^ On On 0> 0\ 
On On On On On 
IT) Np^r Op On 



On On On On On 
On Oi 0> On On 
O' On On On On 
On On On On On 



On On On On On 
On On On On On 
On On ^ On On 
On On On ^ On 
lO NO 1^00 On 



SAiii am iiiii iiiii 

ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo 






o d o o q. 
do odd 

iCOtx- X On 



OOOOO^ 

ddddd 



ooooo 
ddddd 

lO NOt>» 00 On 



74 



OOO'^'^O 


f^oO-^t^O 


tr, ri* so rf \n 


•VOCSM^ 


(>» 00(N • (N 


fo 




1 


^r^ 








^-1 


















8 


. . . .^-i 


<-( • • ^H • 




• v-l • • • 




v-t 
















o 














lO 




vH • • • • 





. . . • 





, 


rO*^..f^ 




. . . . 











<^oo 














NO 














^= 














fC 














fO 


CS .^fO tx> 


vO^-rt • • 


CS -(N • • 


•(N -T-lrH 


rH fS • •■r-l 


















§ 


<N "pHrf fS 


-^^(NTjifS 


^f^ T^ ^ fS 


• • tH »-t • 


l/^ CN • • • 


• 


4(^ 














fO 














fO 


• • wrffsj 


•(M --(fvj 


* • tM »H • 




C<J ^ • • • 


. 


»-!;jo 




























CN*^'^ 


fvi f<^ • • rs 


r^i f-i • ^-- T-^ 


. .^CSl-H 


• fO'H . ■ 


cofDCN •■-1 


CN 














f^iorsi 














ON 














fN 














m^ 














^ 














o 




• y^ • ' 









, 


^9.t^ 




' 










"^00 
4& 




▼H • rH • <i-t 










oRr^i 





. 










^O'-' 














On 














4^ 














NO 


*H»H • • • 











. 


(N^.O 











. • . . 


• 


ID NO »-< 














00 














^ 














Q) 














o 


. _l . ■ . 


•r^ • • • 


• tH • • • 








O^On 






. 




.... 




lOo 














00 














^^ 














Q 


*^ • • • • 





• • t-H • y^ 






. 


CnOnO 


. . . . 





. . 








-^lo 














t^ 














4i^ 














fC 














fO 






• • ' • y-i 









^00^ 














lO o 














NO 














4^ 














• c 
















• o 














































i^ 


. c« 




a>aac>ov 


Ov O^ C» On Os 


ovovaovos 


OsOvOvOvOn 


On On Ov On On 


<v 


. 3 




OvOvOvO^a 


OOCNCNOv 


O. Ov a On On 


On 0> ON ON On 


> 


■ > 




OnOOsOvOn 


OvOsOOnOv 


aoNCvOvOv 


OvOvaovov 


ON ON On CN On 


o 




OOsOvOCN 


OsOvO^OsOn 


OOvOOvON 


On Ov 0^ On 0» 


On On ON On ON 


T3 


•'2 




O-H fsj fO ■^ 


lo vot>- 00 a» 


O ■^ (NfO "^ 


lO Ot-- X On 


On On On On On 


c 




CS CS CN fN fS 


«NCNCNfN«N 


f^fCfOfO^O 


POfOfC<^<^ 


Ti^iOvOt-X 


cd 


' N 


















§ggg§ 


OOOOO 


ooooo 


ooooo 
ooooo 


OOOOO 




ooooo 


ooooo 


ooooo 


o 


















ooooo 


ooooo 


ooooo 


ooooo 


ooooo 


3 


. a; 




O-^JNCO"* 


IT) ot^ooov 


O ^ CNfO -^ 


lO Ot^ 00 On 


ooooo 


Total . . 
Median 
Rank. . 




c<i fNcs CN rs 


CNCN<N«N<N 


CO ^'O ^^ ^o ^o 


r^ CO CO CO CO 




On 



















a* 

2 



fe 



75 



s 

o 

s 

CO 

o 

H 



o 

o 

w^ 

O ^ 

w 

u 

<c 

H 

P4 
w 
P4 

in 
I 

> 

s 

< 

a 

W 

I. 

CO 

cs 

w 
>-? 
n 
< 






^ -oisl auA^Av 



^ ^ .f^,-Hrf« OvOfOrsiO --H ••^' 



T 'ON ^Pijns 



^ . ^^r^ffir-t 



I 'O^ 3DU3JAVBq 't^S 



iOi/^«0 u^f<5<^CSfO t>» T-H Tf PT) th .fo • • CN 



\ -o^ oS9s:^o 



CS Tf CS COtOlN'.-i^ CN »-^ t-( T-l 



Z 'O^ OSSMSQ 



"^rt<-^ (Ml^'Orcro rfffS^ 



>» 

o 



> 

ft 
m 



\ -OM oub;uo 



•»-(fCCS • ■.HCS^fC • •r-lfSTj<(N 



i; •o|v[ j9mT2iJ9H 



^ t^voiC^fO CSCNrc^<N 



\ 'o^ auaajQ 



■^ rO'^fNfO'H CC •(N<N'-^ CS tH fS 



T 'ON 9pa 



,-1 ^ • t-4 • CN -fSCStC u^ w cs ^ 



e -OM uo^uiiD 



O)^ ^^VOCS • «v><Nr<5^ 



\ -ojsi Bnt)nB;nisq3 



th T^ CSiOt^'-irO • (N ^ • th t-i cn »-( 



^ 'o^ sui^iduiox 



^ -cNvcio to"^oot^fO r^ ^ es -^ '^h 



•s 









CnOOvOnCN 


ONONCNaa 


0^0^0^0^<:^ 


OvCM:>a^os 


aOvCM^Os 


ovOsOvaos 


OnOvCNOnOn 


OnO^CKOvGv 


aNOvasoos 


OvONOsOvON 


OOvOvOvOs 


aoovoos 


O »-i csro 'd^ 


lOOt^OO Cv 


lO Ot^ 00 0\ 


T-H *H 1-H «-H tH 


«— 1 rH iH tH T-H 




(iiiio 


ii|i| 


o o o o o 


§§§g§ 


o o o o o 


ooooo 


ooooo 


ooooo 


lO^t^OOOs 


O *-* CN rr, ^ 


io'Ot-.ooos 

»-( tH tH »-l tH 



76 















t^ 


I 


^— 1 fo t^ l^ o 


rO <N fO f^J fO 


r<i*HfsiofC 


^ rs »H -fs 


O CNi^^ ro 


<N 


^VO . 




























fO 














fO 




























. 




























,_! 














^ 














t^ 'fO 


. fSJ .fC l-H 


CN r-i ^ ^ ^ 


^ ^ tH CM *-l 





iO(NfC ••F^ 


. 















fc"~'(» 














X 














CN 














^ 














o 


CS • -TH . 










• • • »H • 


. 


o 














uOt-'-H 














00 














m= 














o 














o 


. .f-^ . . 




• • • ^-1 • 







• 


OOOfS 


























NO 














4^ 














Q 














Q 










• . ,— 1 . . 




fN 0_T^ 














rJ^O 














t^ 














^ 














§ 














in 


T-l ^-1 »-! • »-< 




• • »-! • y-t 




,-4 . . . . 




34 

$172, 
19 














Q 














o 


. . . . ,_) 


• ' • •'^ 




• . ,-1 • . 


tH • • • . 




-^^.00 

-^00 














fo 


1-H • ^-H • ,— 1 






^ . . . . 


• • 1-1 *H • 















• • 


• 


cog- 




























^ 














^ 














cs^-oo 


lO .^^ fS 





,_, . . _l . 


• t-i • • 1— 1 




CS 







. 


. 


. 




Tt<0^ 




























,.^ 














^?= 














NO 














cog- 


r^ w^ 


















































^ 














NO 














NO 


• -C^^ • 


• • »-l tH • 


• • • <^ »H 


• • ♦ • <-i 


P^ .^^ . 




On 
4^ 














Q 














o 


^-H • • • • 







..... 




. 


0*^.10 


. . . . 
















i^(N 














J>. 














^?= 














• c • 














• o 
































4-> 




















0\OsONOvO\ 


OvO^OvOnOs 


O>C^O^O^0N 


On On ON ON On 


O^OnOnOvOn 




• "(3 




CNCsaOvCN 


OvOnOsOvOn 


o<<:>o^CNOv 


O^O^ONO^C^ 


On On OsOv On 


>• 


• >. 




C^O^C^C^C^ 


OnCvOvOnOn 


OnOvOvOnON 


ON On On On Ov 


OnOnOsOvOn 


o 


















:'S 




O- O^ ON Ov OS 


aosososON 


ONOsOvOvOs 






•T3 




O ^ CN fO "^ 


lO vOt^ 00 0\ 


O •.H (>j ro ^ 


lO vOt^ 00 Os 


ON On On ON OS 








CS CS (N CS r4 


(NCSCSCN<N 


c'j f<5 fO f5 fj 


f<5 CO fj fi ^ 


T^iT) Ot^ 00 


a 






§88^8 










. 05 




§§g§g 


OOOOO 


OOOOO 


OOOOO 


o 




ooooo 


OOOOO 


ooooo 


ooooo 


o 


















ooooo 


ooooo 


OOOOO 


ooooo 


ooooo 


o 






O tH fSf«0 "* 


lO vOt^ 00 On 


0^(NfOTt^ 


lO NOr^ 00 Ov 


o 




CN CN CSCS CN 


cs cs CN CN es 


fOf*5fOrorO 


r^r^fOf^PO 


•*ir> vOt>-00 


On 





to 



77 



Differences Found in Ability of Districts to Support Their 

Schools 

The data relative to assessed valuations obtained from the State 
Department have been transmitted into true or equalized valua- 
tions, as these valuations are known in the State of New York. 
The process was that of dividing the assessed valuation in each dis- 
trict by the rate of equalization as determined by the State Tax 
Commission. The equalized valuation as then obtained was 
divided by the number of teachers in the district in question as 
furnished by the State oflBice, thus giving the equalized valuation 
per teacher. 

The equalized valuation per teacher gives an accurate measure 
of the ability of the various school districts in the State to support 
their schools. In order to bring this material together for study, 
Table 23 was prepared, showing the equalized valuation per teacher 
in 1011 common school districts situated in the 24 supervisory 
districts chosen for special study. The table in itself presents an 
interesting picture. It shows very wide differences in the ability 
of the various common school districts situated in each of the 24 
supervisory districts to support their schools. Another obvious 
fact is that there is considerable variation among the different su- 
pervisory districts, each taken as a whole, in their ability to support 
schools. The districts located in Delaware County, for example, 
cannot provide as good schools for their children as those situated 
in Monroe County. Suffolk No. 1 is another district in the latter 
class, while Otsego No. 2 is an example of the former class. The 
districts of Tompkins County, on the other hand, vary among 
themselves as shown from their ranking as. numbers 3, 5, 14 among 
the 24 districts arranged in consecutive order. Taking the 1011 
districts as a group, it will be noticed that there are two districts 
reported with a valuation of less than $10,000 per teacher; on the 
other hand, there are two districts that have valuations of $900,000 
and over, with one in Erie No. 1 as high as $2,500,000 per teacher. 
The median valuation per teacher for the entire 1011 districts is 
$108,157. The middle 50 percent of these equalized valuations 
excluding the 25 percent at the lower and upper ends of the distri- 
bution lies between $65,117 and $182,031. It is possible that this 

78 



median is a little higher than those of common school districts 
generally inasmuch as Doctor Butterworth in his study of school 
buildings ascertained that the median equalized valuation of the 
one-teacher school districts was $92,000, and that of the two- 
teacher districts, $270,000 per teacher. For the one- and two- 
teacher districts combined the median was $95,695. It is probable 
that the actual median for true valuation per teacher of common 
school districts Kes near $100,000. 



The Reasons for These Differences in the Ability of Dis- 
tricts TO Support Schools 

Obviously, the differences in the amount and quality of land 
within a school district are factors. There are numerous examples 
of two neighboring districts each having about the same quality 
of soil, but one having considerably more land or more town prop- 
erty to be taxe4 than the other. Delaware County and the lower 
portion of Tompkins County furnish many examples of the close 
proximity of a district located on the hills where the soil is poor 
and population sparse, and of another district situated in the valley 
where crops are abundant and population more dense, increasing 
thereby the value of the land. 

Another reason, more potent than either of these two just men- 
tioned in causing extreme divergence, is due to the New York method 
of taxing railroads, electric railways, telegraph and telephone lines, 
pipe lines, etc. The real estate owned by these corporations is 
taxable both for town and school purposes but the benefits of this 
taxation extend only to the towns or school districts within whose 
limits these properties are located. The effect of this upon the sup- 
port of towns is not so bad as the effect upon support of schools for the 
reason that the tax for civil purposes goes to the benefit of the 
entire town, while the tax for school purposes extends only to the 
particular school districts through which they happen to pass. 
Thus it may be that only two or three out of a total of twelve, fifteen 
or twenty school districts in the town receive any benefit from this 
large source of income. The valuations of these districts through 
which the railways pass are greatly augmented beyond those of 

79 



their neighbors, as may be seen by comparing Tables 24 and 25. In 
the town of Ulysses, in Tompkins County, district No. 16 has a rail- 
way, a telegraph and a telephone line passing through it whereas 
No. 13 has no railway. 



Table 24. — ^Assessed Valuations of District No. 16, Town of Ulysses, 

Tompkins County 





Farm Properties 




Size in 


Assessed 


Size in 


Assessed 


acres 


valuation 


acres 


valuation 


24 


$4,800 


3 


$750 


16 


1,600 


48 


1,600 


12 


1,100 


34 


1,150 


114.50 


3,550 


6 


700 


96 


1,300 


45 


1,750 


136 


4,700 


101 


4,200 


65 


1,900 


51 


2,000 


25 


750 


69 


2,350 


70 


2,500 


25 


700 


100 


4,000 


61 


2,150 


73 


2,950 


80 


3,400 


94 


3,300 


3 


1,500 


69 


1,900 


7 


500 


89 


700 


33 


500 


98 


3,100 


118 


4,250 


15 


850 


170 


6,900 


92.50 


2,550 


52 


2,000 


2.50 


500 


31 


1,150 


91 


1,800 


39.50 


1,300 




Total 


$82,700 




- 





Public Service Corporation — Real Property 
Name 



Valuation within 
district 



N. Y. Telephone Co $1,250 

Lehigh Valley R. R 28,850 

Ulysses Cooperative Telephone Co 100 



Total 

Summer cottages, $457 



$30,200 



Two districts situated in Monroe County offer a similar con- 
trast. In this case, however, the differences are much greater, as 

8o 



Table 25. — ^Assessed Valuations of District No. 13, Town of Ulysses, 

Tompkins County 





Farm Properties 




Size in 


Assessed 


Size in 


Assessed 


acres 


valuation 


acres 


valuation 


5.50 


$150 


49 


$2,400 


25 


850 


40 


2,050 


1 


500 


66 


2,650 


22 


700 


H&L 


750 


3S 


750 


122 


4,500 


49 


2,050 


209 


7,900 


20 


550 


60 


1,850 


56 


2,400 


59 


2,750 


.50 


100 


8 


350 


75 


3,100 


4 


200 


15 


1,300 


18 


550 


53 


1,950 








Total 


$40,350 







Public Service Corporation- 
Name 



-Real Property 



Valuation within 
district 



New York Telephone Co $400 

Ulysses Cooperative Telephone Co 200 

Waterbury Grange Hall 600 



Total 

Summer cottages, $291 



$1,200 



there are no public service corporations in the lower valuation dis- 
trict. (See Tables 26 and 27.) 



Ability of Union Free School Districts to Support Schools 

The equalized valuations per teacher in union free school districts, 
situated in these same twenty-four supervisory districts, are shown 
in Table 28. This table has the same characteristics as those of 
Table 23 for common school districts. It is somewhat surprising 
that the true valuations per teacher are no higher in this class of dis- 
tricts than in the former, inasmuch as these districts usually include 
villages. The fact that the salaries of the teachers in the high 
6 8i 



schools, which are usually provided by such districts, are higher 
than those of elementary teachers, puts these districts at a greater 



Table 26. — ^Assessed Valuations of District No. 9, Town of Chili, 

Monroe County 

Farm Properties 



Size in 


Assessed 


Size in 


Assessed 


Size in 


Assessed 


acres 


valuation 


acres 


valuation 


acres 


valuation 


4 


$1,400 


1 


$2,800 


60 


$2,100 


7 


1,200 


4 


1,600 


23 


28,000 


106 


8,500 


4 


4,500 


15.50 


1,700 


93.50 


8,400 


10 


1,500 


125 


10,600 


84 


5,900 


39 


1,800 


9.75 


7,000 


172 


11,200 


60 


4,500 


.75 


2,500 


.50 


1,200 


11.50 


700 


111 


8,300 


60 


3,000 


4 


1,000 


13 


1,300 


27.50 


3,500 


155 


10,100 


3S 


4,500 


53 


6,000 


70 


3,500 


70 


9,000 


1 


2,200 


12 


300 


62 


6,500 


1 


2,000 


5 


200 


42 


3,700 


1 


2,400 


64 


2,200 


3S 


3,500 


2 


200 


21 


1,300 


27 


2,000 


3.50 


600 


75 


3,800 


40 


3,800 


43 


8,600 


170 


6,800 


5.50 


1,000 


1.50 


2,400 


160 


6,400 


16 


2,000 


434 


82,500 


82 


4,000 


41 


3,000 


20 


30,800 


5 


400 


9.50 


900 


24.50 


2,500 


49 


1,600 


10.50 


600 


.50 


700 


42 


1,700 


42 


3,000 


.25 


2,000 


69 


2,400 


34 


2,500 


.25 


2,000 


66 


3,600 


12 


4,700 




Total 


$368,100 



Public Service Corporation — Real Property^ Valuation within 

Name district 

New York Telephone Co $6,200 

West Shore 64,300 

Niagara, Lockport & Ont. Power Co 11,120 

Western N. Y. & P. R. R 99,490 

Western Union Telegraph Co 1,110 

Rochester Telephone Co 3,875 

Buffalo, Roch. & Pittsburgh R. R 42,300 

Rochester Railway & Light Co 450 

Brookdale Realty Co 14,900 

Total $243,745 

82 



disadvantage in the support of schools than at least one-half of the 
common school districts. It is true, however, that there are fewer 
of these union free school districts having the extremely low valua- 
tions. 



Table 27. — Assessed Valuations of District No. 

Monroe County 

Farm Properties 



4, Town of Clarkson, 



Size in 


Assessed 


Size in 


Assessed 


acres 


valuation 


acres 


valuation 


69 


$1,750 


118 


$3,550 


59 


1,500 


58 


1,450 


51 


1,300 


118. 50 


5,300 


59 


2,050 


40 


1,000 


60, 32, 28 


4,200 


59 


2,350 


79 


4,750 


59.50 


3,000 


59,50 


3,000 


119 


7,150 


119 


7,150 


59.50 


3,550 


39,50 


2,750 


8 


250 


54,50 


3,250 


119 


7,150 


64,50 


3,850 


59.50 


3,850 




Total 


$74,150 









Ability of Cities to Support Schools 

In contrast with the low equalized valuations in common school 
and union free school districts there are the higher valuations of 
practically all villages under superintendents and all first-, second-, 
and third-class cities. Table 83, found in the Appendix, furnishes 
the data upon this point, while Table 84 (also found in the Appen- 
dix) gives a list of the villages and cities together with the number 
of teachers in each, classified into groups according to their equalized 
valuations per teacher. 

In order to facilitate a comparison between the various classes of 
districts, the total distributions given in Table 23, 28 and 83, are 
brought together in Table 29. Assuming that the common school 

83 



CO 

o 

in 

> 

C/3 


I^iox 


-^^pqr^-^t 


pq 0^ '-'PCt^ 


j>.^(Mrg»H 


— :- 


C^ -H • •»-» 


• »H • • ^^ 


. . fs 


On 


Z -o^ 9UABA\ 




y^ ' w-t • ' 












f^ 




' 


















T 'ON ^PiJnS 


: : : : : 


• ■^^ . fS 


CN • • •^ • 


:-^-^ : 


rH »-H • • • 




. .CN< 




I -ON 
9DuajAVBT •;§ 




^fD . . . 












»o 


*"* 
















I -OM oSas^o 


• • • • T-l 














fO 


»-^ »-H 
























3 -OM OS9AVSO 


: : : :-^ 














T^ 






. 




















T *ON OH^^UQ 




- 






T ON 

J9mi2tJ9H 


: : :-^ : 














fo 


»H tH 

























X -Ol^ 9U99jr) 
















CO 


< ( . 1 »H • 


... 






















T -ON 9pa 




• •»H ^-( • . 












rt* 


"^ 


■ '^ 




















£ -ON uo^uTio 




^ -TH .<N 






-^ : : : : 






»0 






I -ON 
Bnt)nB:^nBi[3 


: : : : : 














es 


*"* 


• »-H 






















£-0N 
sui2iduiox 


• • T-H • *H 














cs 


" * * " ■ 


.... 


..... 












^ 








3 -ON 
sui2fClraox 




1-H • tH • ■>-( 












f<5 

























I -ON 
suiijduiox 




CS 


r-4 T^ •■•■•• ^ 




f '0^ 90JU0J\: 


: : : : : 


• • T-t • • 












ro 






* 
















£ -O^ 90JUOI\[ 










: : : : : 






^ 


















Z 'O^ 90JUOI^ 


: : : : : 


• • • • TH 


;^ :-- 


: : : : : 


. . . . »-t 






ITi 


X -O^ 90JU0PV 




• • y-t ■t-i T-i 












■^ 


















9 ON 

9JBAVBpa 


::::"' 














<N 


'^ 
























S'ON 

9JBMBl9a 




CS 


»H • • ..... ...... 




t* ON 

9JBAN.Bl9a 


: : : : : 














'<*' 


' 
























e*oN 

9JBMBpa 


: : : : : 














cs 










"^ 
















3 -ON 

9JBAVBpa 


. . . ,-1 . 


: : : : : 












CN 








* * 














I OK 
9iBMBpa 




- 















. . . 








Equalized 

valuations per 

teacher 


$30,000-39,999 
40,000-49,999 
50.000-59,999 
60.000-69,999 
70.000-79,999 


80,000-89,999 

90.000-99,999 

100,000-109,999 

110,000-119.999 

120,000-129,999 


130,000-139,999 
140,000-149.999 
150.000-159,999 
160,000-169,999 
170,000-179,999 


180,000-189,999 
190,000-199,999 
200,000-209,999 
210,000-219,999 
220,000-229,999 


230,000-239,999 
240,000-249,999 
250,000-259,999 
260,000-269,999 
270,000-279,999 


280,000-289,999 
290,000-299,999 
300,000-309,999 
310,000-319,999 
320,000-329,999 


330,000-339,999 
340,000-349,999 
350,000-360,000 





84 



Table 29. — Equalized Valuations per Teacher in 1011 Common School 
AND 79 Union Free School Districts and 104 Cities and Villages 
Under Superintendents, Illustrated by Diagram 7 



Equalized valuations 
per teacher 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities and 
villages 
under super- 
intendents 


Total 


$0,000- 9,999 
10,000- 19,999 
20,000- 29,999 
30,000- 39,999 
40,000- 49.999 


2 

9 

24 

50 

67 






2 

9 

24 

51 

68 


50,000- 59,999 
60,000- 69,999 
70,000- 79,999 
80,000- 89,999 
90,000- 99,999 


68 
64 
78 
51 
46 


2 
2 
4 
12 
9 




70 
66 
82 
63 
56 


100,000-109,999 
110,000-119,999 
120,000-129,999 
130,000-139,999 
140,000-149,999 


11 

44 
34 
38 


11 
3 

7 
7 
1 


3 
5 
5 
5 
5 


71 
46 
56 
46 

44 


150,000-159,999 
160.000-169,999 
170,000-179,999 
180,000-189,999 
190.000-199,999 


24 
29 
32 
16 
11 


2 
2 
1 
1 
3 


13 

4 
9 

7 
2 


39 
35 
42 
24 
16 


200,000-209,999 
210,000-219,999 
220,000-229,999 
230,000-239,999 
240.000-249.999 


19 
9 
11 
18 
16 


1 

i 

2 

1 


5 
1 
5 
3 

4 


25 
10 
17 
23 
21 


250,000-259,999 
260,000-269,999 
270,000-279,999 
280,000-289,999 
290,000-299,999 


16 

10 

7 

9 

9 


i 


4 
3 

2 
1 
2 


20 
13 
10 
10 
12 


300,000-309,999 
310,000-319,999 
320,000-329,999 
330,000-339,999 
340,000-349,999 


5 
5 
8 
9 
8 


i 


•• 


5 

5 

14 

10 

9 


350,000-359,999 
360,000-369,999 
370,000-379,999 
380,000-389,999 
390.000-399.999 


1 

8 
3 
2 
3 


2 


•. 


3 
8 
3 

4 
4 


400,000-499.999 
500,000-599,999 
600,000-699,999 
700,000-799,999 
800,000-899,999 
900,000 and over 


22 
10 
9 
3 
4 
5 


•• 


•• 


24 
10 
9 
4 
5 
6 


Total 


1,011 


79 


104 


1,194 






Median equalized valuation . . . 


$108,157 


$107,727 


$182,857 


$117,608 



8s 



districts and the union free school districts represented in this table 
are typical of their respective classes of districts throughout the 
State, it is evident from this assembly of cases that, while the 
amount of wealth behind each teacher is 75 percent greater in the 
cities than in the other two classes of districts, nevertheless there are 



Uwnljer of school districts % 



Tbousande of 


Comitton 


Union 


City and 


dollars 




yree 


Village 


Under 10 


21 






10-19 


9HM 






20-29 
30-39 


24 ^■■■■■1 


li 

■■■■ 

■■■ 21 




40-49 

50-59 

60-69 

70-79 

80-89 

90-99 

100-109 

110-119 

120-129 

130-139 








12 ■■■1 
9HBi 

zm 

71M 

7 wm 


11 

3B 






140-149 
150-159 


24 ■■■■■■ 


11 

21 


\zwtmm 


160-169 




21 




170-179 




11 


9HBB 


180-189 


leHHHH 


11 


7 ■■ 


190-199 


IIHHHI 


3 a 


21. 


200-209 


19HHHHB 


11 


5 V 


210-219 


9aHi 




11 


220-229 


IIHIB 


11 




230-239 


18 ■■■■1 


21 


3B 


240-249 


leiHHH 


11 


4BI 


250-259 


16BBHHB 




4B 


260-269 


lOHHi 




SB 


270-279 


7iB 


11 


21 


280-289 


9HHi 




11 


290-299 


9BM 


11 


21 


300-309 


5tM 






310-319 


5 ■ 






320-329 


8BM 


11 


5 ■§ 


330-339 


9BHi 




11 


340-349 


&■■ 




11 


350-359 


H 


2 1 




360-369 


8BHi 






370-379 


3« 






il8:ill 

400-499 


21 
SB 


-■ 


21 
11 


22 V///////////////k 




SB 


500-599 


10 \iV////A 


^~ 




600-699 








700-799 


50 


-, 


1 1 


800-899 


Am 




IB 


900 and over 5 ^ 




1 B 



Diagram 7. — Equalized valuations per teacher in 1011 common, 79 union 
free, and 104 city and village school districts, illustrating Table 29 



a large nimiber of common school districts that have as high valua- 
tions as the wealthier cities, and that, although the cities are scat- 
tered widely as regards wealth, the common school districts show 
even a more extensive distribution. It is important to point out 
also that from these facts it is clear (1) that all common school dis- 

86 



tricts should not be considered to be poorer than city districts, and 
(2) that the poorest villages and cities are in a situation similar to 
the median rural school districts. 

What is the Remedy for the Situation thus Revealed? 

The first question that arises is whether it is necessary to have 
schools in these low-valuation common school districts, and if not, 
might it not be advisable to combine districts in such a way that all 
of them would have at least a minimum of equalized valuations 
which would make possible the support of an efficient school by the 
levying of a reasonable tax? The complete answer to this question 
cannot be discussed here; it is sufficient to point out the relation- 
ship that exists between the average daily attendance and the valua- 
tion per teacher in the 571 common school districts situated in Dela- 



Table 30. — Relationship Between Average Daily Attendance Per 
Teacher and Equalized Valuation Per Teacher in 571 Common School 
Districts of Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties 



Average daily 
attendance 


Number of 
schools 


Percent 


Median 
valuation 


1- 5 

6-10 

11-15 

16-20 

21-25 


63 
171 
152 
101 

84 


10 
30 

27 
18 
15 


$49,444 
78,684 
112,500 
161,666 
236,000 


•• 


571 


100 


•• 



Median attendance 12.68 

Median valuation $109,318 

r = + .587 



ware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties. Table 30 shows in the 
second column the number of schools having each of the average 
daily attendances indicated in the first column, in the third column 
the percent of districts in each group and in the fourth column the 
median valuation of the districts in each group. 
This table proves there is a direct positive correlation between 

87 



average daily attendances and the equalized valuations, which 
means that the schools with the lowest attendance are in the poor- 
est districts and the schools with the highest attendance are in the 
richest districts. If it is possible in any way to reduce the number 
of these schools with smaller attendance, it will contribute consider- 
ably to the efl5ciency of school administration. 



88 



CHAPTER VI 
TAX-RATES 

IN ORDER to study the tax-rates in the school districts of the 
State of New York it was necessary for the same reasons as 
stated in connection with valuations to eliminate the differences 
among the various districts arising from the different rates of 
assessment observed by the assessors in the various towns of the 
State. The equalization rates furnished by the State Tax Com- 
mission referred to under the previous head were used to transmute 
the actual tax-rates as levied into the " equalized ^^ tax-rates as they 
are called in the State of New York. This was done by multiplying 
the tax-rate as levied in any district by its rate of equalization. 
Thus if the tax-rate is five mills and the rate of equalization .75 
the equalized tax-rate is 3.75 mills. 

In Common School Districts 

Table 31 gives the distribution of the tax-rates in 1070 school 
districts situated in the 24 supervisory districts chosen for special 
study. This table not only shows wide deviations within each and 
every one of the supervisory districts, but also wide variations be- 
tween the supervisory districts themselves. Thus in supervisory 
district No. 1 of Delaware County two school districts levy a tax of 
less than two mills, while three districts levy a tax of more than 30 
mills. 

There are great differences between the various supervisory 
districts as well, as is shown by Monroe No. 3, which has a median 
tax-rate of 2.98 mills, while Oswego No. 2 has a median tax-rate of 
9.91 mills; between these two extremes lie Delaware No. 5 and No. 6, 
and Greene No. 1 with median tax-rates of 5.50, 5.50 and 5.68 mills 
respectively. 

89 



Ib;ox 



tH lO fO ^O CN 



OOfOOO'^t^ OOs»OC<IfS 00O«>»fOTf CS • 





Z -OM 9U^BM 




i-HCNOOOv C^VOCN -fO fN 


: : : 














T -ON ^iioijns 




esroovO t^u-jThcs 


: : : 














X -OM aDuajAVEq •;§ 




T-ifOOsO Tt< cs li^ fo Tf rt^fSioescN ^ 


^^^ 














T -o^ oSas;o 




• r^ro-^ Tt< "'f -^ "^ -^ -(NCNtH • >rH 




















3 -0^ 033MS0 




. .,-1^ lofcrtfio^ Tt< t}< tJ* 1-H cs <r) »-t 


1—1 


^^ 




-^ 




T -OM OUB^UQ 




PO^CMO rou^JfO'H . . .^ . . 
























T -OM J3UII51J9H 




•rOfOlO CNt^"^lOlO (M I-H • ■^ • 
























X 'o^ aua9J0 




i-(lOPCCN ,-1 ^ ,-( . • .^ .^ . . 








1-1 














T 'ON spa 


^HioCMTivO ro CN th 
























e -OM uo;uii3 


'-<r000\«0 rocs • (N • ,-!•••• 






















CO 


t -ojsi Bnl)nB;nEq3 


•Tj^(M'T^TH ^t^cO'-ifS TfKM »H 1-1 ro 






















->-> 

2 
^ 


£ -o^ suij^duiox 


••^C^J'.-HfO ONOOlOt^CS CCfOCN'rHrO 






1-H »H 














2 •o|«;[ sui5iduiox 


^ -cst^tN t^vOiOCNCo fo -rC • 










; 












> 


X 'o^ suT5[(Imox 


. .^fr)Tj< lO^iC^r^ 


cs 


1— 1 






CO 


^ ^ 










3 


f -ojsi aojuop^ 


T-tt^fOi-HO es i-H ro • • 






























£ *oj^ aojuop\[ 


CN i-H »0 O CO NOCS • i-H • 






























Z 'o^ aojuoj\[ 


1—1 






























X 'O]^ aojuop\[ 


esrc •rH fo PO lO (N • • • 

1-1 ^H ... 






























9 -OM aJBMBpQ 




1-iiot^a^ r^O-^T-tcN 


^^^ 




















T-t 




9 -o^ ajBMBpQ 




fSOOOOiO iCfOt^iOfO fOi-i • • 


»-l 






















t 'O]^ ajBM^pa 




csvooo io«/^povo • -^ -cs • 

»-H T-( • • • 




▼^ 


















e -ON ajBMBpa 




t^Ovii^fO i-ieN»oi>-es ro cs ^ • 


«H T-4 • 


















^ -ON ajBMBpa 


^ .,H««*io lOOvfOTt^f^ tHIO "CS^ »Hr<5^ 








tH 








X "OM 3JBMBPQ 


•CS -CNVO ONrO«0(NVO lOT^CN^^ .tH»h 








; 


tH 









O^OvO^O^O^ 0\0\O^OnO^ OvO>OnOvO^ OiOvOvOvOv OvOvOnOvOv 

0\0^0»0>0^ O\^0^0v0v 0^^0^0^0^ O»Ov0vO*0v 0^0^0^0^0^ 

O »-< es 00 •^ to vd f** 00* o^ O ■<-H cs ro ■^ ic vd t^* 00* o^ o* ■•-I cn fo* ^ 

^ ^ ,-( ^ _, ^ T_, ^ ^ ^ CN CN CN es es 

I I I r T trill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

O^CSf*)-<*< ioOt^00O\ OthcncotH iovOr-00O\ O ^ CN fO "<^ 

rH tH tH tH T-( ^^r-HT-trl CS CS CN CN CN 



90 



»-l *-• »H CS 1-t 



^ "^ 





5i2 2. 




00 X 00 


: :^ : : : : : : : 


o 




o 


»-H • • • • 


^^ 1 




^^ 3 




00 lO ^ 




^:2 ? 




o 


• • • ^-H • 










IOCS /• 




52 3 




OOOs O 




5- i 




-- S 




o 

ooio Co 




\0 


: : : : : :^ : : : 


^- ^ 




-~-. 






: : : : : : : : :^ 


O^ 8 


: : : : : : : : : : 


o« 8 
1 ^^ 5 


'fH • »H tH • 


Tj^ro 8 
00 



^ Os ^ o> o^ 

0« 0« O^ 0^ 9t 

lO vC t^* 00 o\ 

cs cs es cs cs 
I I I I I 

tOOt^ 00 o* 
CN es cs cs es 



Os ^ Ov 
^ ^ ^ 
O ^-3 CN 
ro fO fJ 

J. ' ' 

O »-H (N 

ro PO ^ 



> 

o 



CS • 



i'O 



'. 3 * 
^' S «^ 1* 



The median tax-rate for the 1070 
districts probably represents with a 
fair degree of accuracy the median 
tax-rate in rural school districts 
throughout the State. This median 
is 5.44 mills. It should also be 
pointed out that there are certain 
supervisory districts in which the 
variation of tax-rates among the 
various districts is much narrower 
than in Delaware; among those 
which are conspicuous for slight 
variations are Monroe No. 1, No. 2, 
No. 3, Erie No. 1 and Suffolk No. 1, 
all of which have low tax-rates. 
Table 32 contains a list of the 
names of those districts situated in 
each of the supervisory districts of 
Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins 
Counties which are conspicuous 
either for low or high tax-rates. 
They illustrate all the more plainly 
the wide differences in the tax bur- 
den imposed upon the people in the 
various rural school commimities of 
the State. 

In Union Free, Village and City 
Districts 

Table 33, giving the true tax-rates 
for union free school districts, shows 
the same wide variation as was 
found in common school districts 
when taken both as entire groups 
and within the supervisory districts. 
Table 34 shows the same data for the 
various classes of cities and villages 

91 



Table 32. — School Districts in Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Coun- 
ties Representing Extremes in Equalized Tax-Rate 



Delaware No. 1 

Mills No. 

1.32 Sidney 3 

1.99 " 2 

3.63 " 15 



Delaware No. 5 

Mills No. 

1.09 Franklin 2 

1.83 Davenport 3 

2.24 Franklin 23 



Monroe No. 3 

Mills No. 

.75 Clarkson 6 

.75 Greece 5 

1.84 Clarkson 9 



30.46 Tompkins 15 

32.40 " 24 

33.60 Masonville 12 



10.79 Meredith 8 6.18 

11.30 " 12 6.30 

15.88 Davenport 12 8.46 



Parma 



11 
1 

3 



Delaware No. 2 
Mills 

.76 Colchester 
3.16 Hancock 
2.97 



16.99 
17.88 
22.62 



Colchester 



Delaware No. 6 Monroe No. 4 

No. Mills No. Mills 

2 1.93 Harpersfield 14 .83 

19 2.47 Bovina 8 1.52 

10 2.76 Harpersfield 15 1.53 

28 13.89 Kortright 15 7.15 

30 24.50 " 16 7.31 

16 31.60 " 11 7.45 



Chili 



Gates 

Riga 

Gates 



No. 
9 
6 

2 

7 
2 
1 



Delaware No. 3 

Mills No. 

1.24 Walton 16 

1.29 " 10 

1.32 " 2 



Monroe No. 1 

Mills No. 

.48 Brighton 1 

.91 " 8 

1.38 " 4 



Tompkins No. 1 

Mills No. 

2.94 Ulysses 14 

3.62 " 11 

3.74 Enfield 1 



15.55 Delhi 18 5.95 Penfield 3 17.00 

16.23 " 14 6.18 Irondequoit 5 19.53 

38.25 Hamden 1 6.30 Penfield 13 20.37 



Newfield 



14 

8 

15 



Delaware No. 4 

Mills No. 

1.60 Roxbury 4 

1.82 " 17 

2.38 " 14 

12.40 Andes 9 

12.63 " 17 

17.65 Middletown 7 



Monroe No. 2 

Mills No. 

.73 Rush 2 

1.61 " ^. 7 

1.73 Perinton 12 



6.22 Pittsford 
8.19 Perinton 
8.50 



Tompkins No. 2 

Mills No. 

.08 Groton 12 

2.66 Lansing 5 

2.72 Ithaca 6 



5 12,43 Groton 17 

1 12.50 Lansing 22 

2 12.59 Groton 18 

Tompkins No. 3 



Mills 

1.56 Dryden 

2.37 

2.66 



No. 

25 

26 

7 



14.70 Caroline 
18.17 Danty 
19.17 " 



92 





I^^OX 


-«*< "<* fT) CM X 




Tf 


- 


(N 


^ 








- 




^ 


i2 

t 

C/3 


2 -ON auABM 


CN • "F^ • 




• 










fO 


T -ON ^lo^ns 


^^ .ro »-4 -^ CNC^ 


■^ 




1-H 










fO 


X -o^ 3DuajMBq -t^s 






- : : --^^ 


- 


















ID 


X -ON oS3s;o 








• • ^^-^ 


- 


- 


















CO 


?; -OM oSaMSQ 








:- 




PC 






















^ 


X -OM oub:)uo 












- 






















-^ 


X -o^ jampijaH 








; : 




fS 








- 












fC 


X -ON auaajo 








• r-< 


1—1 1—1 






















PC 


X -ON 9ua 




■r-^ 


- : 




• 1—1 • 




1-1 • 














""t 


e -OM uo;uii3 


^-< 


•^ •^ cs 
























lO 


X •oj^ Bnt)nB;nBq3 








-- 






- : 




















<N 


£ -o^ suiJidmox 














:- 
















»H 


cs 


2 -oisi supidraox 










1-H 


fS • 




















fo 


X -ojsi supidraox 












- 


iH 




















CN 


fr -o^j aojuop^ 






»-( CN 






























fO 


2 -o^ aojuop^ 




tH 


; 






























1-1 


Z 'o^ aojuoj^ 




1-1 


CN^ ^ 


























>o 


X 'o^ 30Juoj\; 


»H 




T-H »H 




1-H 




















•«* 


9 -oisl aJBMBpQ 








: : : : 






• 1-1 »-l 
















<N 


5 'O^ aiBM^PQ 








• • • tH 






: : : 


:- 












C^ 


fr -0^ aJBMBpQ 




• 




.^^ .^ 




:^ : 
















""i* 


e -OM ajBMBpa 


^-1 






• • 








1-1 
















cs 


^ -o^ ajBMBxaQ 


; 






: - 








1-1 
















CN 


X -oj^ ajBMBpa 








• • 




1-H 


















1-1 




Equalized 

tax-rates, 

mills 


s 

1 


NO 
NO 

1 


SO 
;0 
J IT 

I 


nOvO 
vOvO 


s O 

N O 

. =1 


so 
SO 

5o 
1 

30 


so 
SO 
sC 

.1 


O 

o 

J 


so 
\0 


V O 


SO 
SO 

;4 


so 
SO 
Sir 


NO 

SO 

JVC 
< 1- 

1 »- 


vO 
sO 

"I 
> t> 


s O 
s O 
.' « 


so 

so 

'O 


SO 

so 
sC 

«<! 

1 (> 


> 


13 

1 



93 



under superintendents. The most striking fact established by this 
table is that, when taking them as groups, the larger the popula- 
tion the smaller the tax-rates and the smaller the population the 
larger the tax-rates. 



Table 34. — Equalized Tax-Rates in 104 First-, Second-, and Third-Class 


Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 




Equalized 

tax-rates, 

mills 


First-class 
cities 


Second-class 
cities 


Third-class 
cities 


Villages 

under 

superin- 


Total 








tendents 




2- 2.99 




1 






1 


3- 3.99 












4- 4.99 






2 




2 


5- 5.99 


1 


1 


4 


3 


9 


6- 6.99 


1 


1 


8 


10 


20 


7- 7.99 


1 


2 


8 


11 


22 


8- 8.99 




2 


10 


7 


19 


9- 9.99 






6 


4 


10 


10-10.99 






6 


2 


8 


11-11.99 






3 


3 


6 


12-12.99 






1 




1 


13-13.99 








2 


2 


14-14.99 








2 


2 


15-15.99 








1 


1 


16 and over 






1 




1 


Total 


3 


7 


49 


45 


104 



Median equalized tax-rate: 

Cities 7.95 

Villages 7.86 

Total ' 7.90 



Comparison of all Classes or Districts 

The data for all classes of districts are brought together in Table 
35. This table shows that it is the union free school districts taken 
as a group which have the highest tax-rates in the State. Thus it 
seems to be true that the principle just deduced for cities may be 
extended to include union free school districts, namely, the smaller 
the population of the district, the higher the tax-rate, and the larger, 

94 



Table 35.— Equalized Tax-Rates in 1070 Common School Districts, 79 
Union Free School Districts and 104 Cities ant> Villages Under 
Superintendents 



Equalized 

tax-rates, 

mills 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union 

free school 

districts 


Villages and 

cities under 

superintendents 


Total 


0- 0.99 

1- 1.99 

2- 2.99 

3- 3.99 

4- 4.99 

5- 5.99 


10 
50 
133 
164 
122 
128 


4 
4 
3 


i 

"i 

9 


10 
50 
134 
168 
129 
139 


6- 6.99 

7- 7.99 

8- 8.99 

9- 9.99 
10-10.99 


113 

78 
64 
47 
40 


12 
8 
9 
6 

14 


20 
22 
19 
10 

8 


145 

108 

92 

63 

62 


11-11.99 
12-12.99 
13-13.99 
14-14.99 
15-15.99 


29 
25 
12 
12 

8 


6 
4 
4 
1 

2 


6 

1 
2 
2 
1 


41 
30 
18 
15 
11 


16-16.99 
17-17.99 
18-18.99 
19-19.99 
20-20.99 


6 

7 
3 
4 

2 


1 
1 






7 
7 
3 
4 
3 


21-21.99 
22-22.99 
23-23.99 
24-24.99 
25-25.99 


1 
1 

3 
1 










1 
1 

3 
1 


26-26.99 
27-27.99 
28-28.99 
29-29.99 
30-30.99 


i 
*i 








• 


i 
*i 


31-31.99 
32-32.99 
33-33.99 
34.00 and 
over 


1 
1 

2 
1 








1 


1 
1 

2 
2 


Total 


1,070 


79 


104 


1,253 


Median equal- 
ized tax-rates . . 


5.44 


8.94 


7.90 


5.97 



95 



^ 




^ 




< 




w 




C/3 




^ 




Q^ 




»-H 




P4 




H 


m 


t/3 

t— t 




H^ 


tJ 


o 


n 


o 


U 


f) 


r/1 


CO 


12; 


^ 




o 


ft 


s 


;^ 


>3 


o 


o 


H 


O 


Q 


ro 


;? 


i>. 


< 


ir> 




% 


w 
o 




« 


Oi 


^ 


H 


o 


S 


§ 


P^ 




X 


s 


< 


^ 


H 


& 


Q 


2 


::3 


o 






p 


w 


^ 


> 


<: 


o 


Pi 


Ph 


w 


o 


u 


H 


< 


o 


H 


X 


H 


<3 


^ 


M 


S 


^ 




< 


o 


> 






3 


P 


< 


w 


> 


o 





p< 


s 


^ 



fOr^O^^CC T^f^^Q^OvO (NTt<fOes*0 f^u^irjOOO Omo»^CSOn Tt<t^vOvOVO 
PO ro ■T*<fOTt<roes cs es es »h cs ^ r-i th *h ^ th 






vo 



»H • cs ^ 



OvcO rt< cs th CN 



Tj<CN ThJS^ »H • 



Ti<^ OCNfOlO-^ ^ tH ^H • 



fv^t^rH^ CO ^ ^ .CO ^ 



^t-. t^ 00 TjH "<^ CS ^t^PO'<* • fO -tH 



t^(Nl^VO ^OCSCS-rtVO ^PO^'HCS 



•■^HVOOlO CS-^t^ -lO fOT^CSVOfO '^ .t-lTH 



CStH -^h 



<s -^fST^ "^t^T^POi>» -lOfO -T-i iocscs'<*<(N »opo 'Tfes 



th CN T-i th T-4 •^ cs Tti r-irrnnm^ 



^^lovo "^ -rocsr^ 



<>J tH . .tH . cs 



CS -tH tH •■.-H^ 



a 



c C «J 
2 rts 
^ 2 o 

nS o 
> 



0^ OvO\OvOs O^OvO^OvOv 0^0^0^0^0^ 0^0^0^0^0^ 

Os^O\0\ 0\0\avO\0\ 0'-tcN<r)r»< lOVOt^XOv O'-HCNfO'^ lOvOt^OOO^ 

a\ -fh es fO •^ iOOt>.000\ rH ^ tH ^ ^ ^^^^^ CN CN (N CN CS CN <N es CN CN 

iiiii iAiii iiiii iiiii AiiiA .mii, 

tiCSfO^ iov0t^000\ OTHCNfC^ ioOt^000\ O^HCNrorf^ lO O t^ 00 0\ 

,H«H«-tfH*-l ^^^^^ CS (N fN CS fS «N CN <N CS ?N 



96 



#^tf\6^u^ »-t^*^^^^^ 




• <^j 


•fN 


CO 
»o 
















; 






















- 


















































































































- 






































CN 






































t^ 






































VO 






































tH 






































"* 






































VO 






































- 






^H 






^-1 






















00 






































^—1 












































































5 




















































^-1 • 






^-H • 














lO 










T<H 


; ; 






; ; 














CO 
VO 




^-1 • 




• • 


; ; 






• • 














s 


»-^ »-i • 




CN ^(N • 






CN »H . 












s 


^^lOfTlTH 


^ CSCO • 


vOCnJ ^ • 










00 


1-H iFl • ,-( ,H 


CS • '^ <N Tt«i-l 


-^ : 






CN 




• • • • • »H • • 


»H • 


<N 


t^ 


s 


CO 


i 


<0 

? 

to 


1 

CO 


CO 


i 

CO 


OS 
CO 


1 

CO 


1 

CO 


1 


On 


1 


i 


! 




o 
-a 

C3 




3 
(2 





its population, the lower 
the tax-rate. This principle 
does not extend, however, 
to the common school dis- 
tricts as a group, for the 
median tax-rate of this 
group is lower than that of 
any other group. The lowest 
taxes paid for schools in the 
school districts of the State 
of New York are paid in 
certain common school dis- 
tricts and there are so many 
of these low-tax school dis- 
tricts as to bring the median 
down below those of the 
other two groups. Notwith- 
standing this, it is true, how- 
ever, that the highest tax- 
rates paid for schools in the 
State of New York are in 
certain common school dis- 
tricts. 

Relationship of Tax- 
Rates TO Other 
Factors 

Because of this unusual 
combination of low tax- 
rates and high tax-rates 
within the same class of 
district, it is important for 
us to show what relation- 
ships may exist between 
it and other administrative 
factors. Table 36 shows 
the relationship existing be- 
tween the equalized valua- 



97 



tion per teacher and the equalized tax-rate in the common school 
districts of Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties. Beside 
each valuation is given, in the appropriate columns, the number of 
districts that levy the tax-rate indicated in one of the headings of 
the respective columns. The table shows at a glance what one 
would naturally expect, namely, a close indirect relationship between 
the tax-rates and the valuations — low valuations and high tax-rates, 
high valuations and low tax-rates. Expressed in terms of a 
correlation coefficient derived according to Pearson, the relationship 
isr=— .746. 

It is more important to ascertain the relationship between the 
tax-rates and the number of pupils in average daily attendance, 
for if it is possible to do away with the high tax-rate of schools, it 
will promote economy in administration. Table 37 furnishes de- 

Table 37.— Relationship Between Average Daily Attendance Per 
Teacher and Equalized Tax-Rate in 574 Common School Districts of 
Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties 



Average daily 
attendance 


Number of 
schools 


Percent of 
schools 


Median equalized 
tax-rate, mills 


1- 5 

6-10 

11-15 

16-20 

21-25 


63 
170 
152 
103 

86 


11 
30 
26 
18 
15 


6.95 
3.71 
5.40 
4.16 

3.75 


•• 


574 


100 





Median attendance 1 12.77 

Median equalized tax-rate 5.26 mills 

r = +.17 



tailed information upon this point for all common school districts 
in Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties. In the third col- 
umn are found the percentages, and in the fourth column the 
median equalized tax-rates of districts belonging in each group. 
While the relationship is not quite so direct as in the case of equal- 
ized valuations, nevertheless the principle obtains that the lower 

98 



the average daily attendance, the higher the tax-rate, and the higher 
the average daily attendance, the lower the tax-rate. Thus it would 
seem that if it were practicable to abandon the schools with small 
enrolments, considerable economy could be brought about in rural 
school administration in the State of New York. 

Effect of Adopting the Town as the Unit of School 

Support 

One remedy that has frequently been suggested by various 
persons for the equalization of the tax burden is the abolishment 
of the school district as a taxing unit and the establishment of 
the town in its stead. Undoubtedly this is a move in the right di- 
rection.^ It is desirable for us to answer the question regarding the 
effect of such action upon the tax-rates for school purposes in the 
various towns as now constituted. Table 56 for three different 
towns situated in three different counties gives sufficient data. 
The result may be summed up as follows: The town tax-rate for 
schools would be approximately the average tax-rate of the various 
school districts situated within it, provided schools are maintained 
as in the past. This means that the tax-rates of those owners of 
property living within districts now having a high tax-rate would 
have less tax to pay for schools, while those residing within dis- 
tricts now paying low tax-rates would have their school taxes in- 
creased. 

The greatest return to come from such action as this is the ex- 
tending of the benefit of the tax upon railway and other public 
service corporations, and creameries and similar private corpora- 
tions throughout the entire territory of the town, as is now the case 
in town governmental affairs. There seems to be no good reason 
why this should not be done. In fact, many towns in the State of 
New York, according to information gathered by the Survey, are 
still paying bonds voted to aid railways which consented to run 
their lines within the town. Mere justice should require that bene- 
fits of taxes levied upon such corporations should affect the entire 

^ That this enlargement of the unit of taxation does not go far enough is 
shown by the results of the field work, described in Chapter XII. See also 
Chapter VII. 

99 



town. But aside from this, there are so many ways in which the 
entire inhabitants of the town are tied together in common interests 
and responsibilities. These are reaHzed in the maintenance of 
highways and for such other purposes for which the town exists, 
and it would seem as though the case of the highways is not differ- 
ent from that of the schools. 



zoo 



CHAPTER VII 

POSSIBLE REMEDIES THROUGH LOCAL 
READJUSTMENTS 

THE data presented in the previous chapters have estabUshed 
the following facts :^ 
L That rural schools cost less per teacher than city schools. 

2. That rural schools cost more per pupil than city schools. 

3. That the proportion of expenses incurred for teachers is larger 
in rural schools than in city schools. 

4. That the percentages spent for instruction, supplies, library 
books, operation and maintenance of building, promotion of health, 
are lower in rural schools than in city schools. 

5. That the equalized tax-rates for schools are higher in cities 
than in rural commimities when these are taken as groups. 

6. That tax-rates in one-eighth of the rural districts of the State 
are higher than in any city. 

7. That the equalized valuation back of each teacher is higher in 
cities than in rural communities when taken as a group. 

8. That there are a large number of rural school districts which 
have higher valuations per teacher than the highest cities — 12 per- 
cent. 

9. That those rural school districts having high tax-rates gener- 
ally have low costs per teacher and high costs per pupil. 

10. That those districts having low valuations generally have 
low costs per teacher and high costs per pupil. 

11. That the explanation of these contrasts lies in low average 
daily attendance, which is closely associated with sparse population. 

12. That the tax-law, in confining the benefit of the taxes on 

^See Chapter XIV for summary of findings relative to state or central 
finances. 

lOI 



public service corporations to those school districts through which 
they pass, makes great variation in the valuations and in tax-rates 
of districts lying in close proximity to each other. 

13. That the business administration as it is carried on in district 
meetings and by the trustees, collectors and treasurers is wasteful 
in that possible economies in the expenditure of funds are not ex- 
ercised. Taxes are not collected promptly, interest on funds is 
not obtained, and budgets are not properly prepared. 

What shall be done to relieve the situation? Several possible 
remedies are offered: 

1. To abolish the schools with small enrolments and transport the 
pupils thereof to other schools except in those cases in which, in the 
opinion of the State Commissioner of Education, the continuance of 
the school is necessary because of unusual climatic or topographical 
conditions. This is a partial remedy. It will secure a large enough 
number of pupils per teacher, make it more practicable to provide 
first class schoolhouses and adequate supplies and equipment, 
and thus greatly increase the quality of the educational product. 
Whether it will reduce the total cost of schools depends upon the 
cost of transportation and upon the educational facilities that will 
be provided. In case one small school is consolidated with another, 
the savings in cost will depend very largely upon the cost of trans- 
portation. If a combination of schools is carried to the point where 
several teachers are employed with full quotas of pupils, the ten- 
dency has been in other states to increase the salaries of these teach- 
ers and to provide proper supplies and equipment for them. Hence 
the waste of poor teachers and poor equipment at high cost is 
transformed into an efficient school at low pupil costs, but without 
the actual decreasing of the tax-rates. Thus they get a product of 
standard quality at about the same cost as that previously paid for 
a product of poor quality. 

Such a plan as this would reduce the necessity of looking after a 
number of schools scattered over a given territory. Concentrating 
maintenance in one place facilitates control and supervision of the 
school plant and makes it more efficient and economical, as was 
shown in Chapter HI. 

The state-wide institution, the "contract school," is proof of the 

I02 



wsdom of abandoning the small school. It has been established 
by the farmers themselves because it has lowered tax-rates. Dis- 
tricts with a smaller nimiber of pupils find it cheaper to pay tuition 
to a neighboring district in accordance with the terms of a contract 
than to keep up their own schools. 

The best interests of the State, as a whole, and of most of the rural 
communities in the State, demand that small schools be aboKshed 
in order to promote economy and efficiency of administration. If 
it is not possible to abolish these small schools by law, the system 
of state aid should be so formulated as to promote this aim. Just 
how far this combination of rural schools should be carried beyond 
that of the small attended rural schools has been treated in detail 
in the section of the Survey dealing with administration and super- 
vision. 

2. To reorganize the schools within each community in such a 
way as will secure the most economic and efficient school adminis- 
tration, including the proper provision for high school education 
and also the merging of the common school districts into a new 
and larger district. This solution is a better one than that first 
proposed, which provided for the abolition of only the small 
schools. It is a natural outcome of the first plan because ordinarily 
it will be found that while the elimination of the small schools is 
essential, nevertheless the best solution lies in the reorganization of 
practically all of the schools of the community and their concentra- 
tion in a community center. 

As has been said in connection with the previous recommenda- 
tion, it is also true that in complete community consolidation the 
costs depend upon the quality of the teaching secured and the addi- 
tional supplies and equipment furnished beyond those provided for 
in the scattered schools. Naturally, the addition of high schools, 
the provision for libraries, the introduction of special departments 
of agriculture and of home-making, the employment of special 
teachers in music and drawing, etc., will increase costs beyond those 
of the former schools. The contrast between the costs of this 
type of school and those of the one-teacher rural school can be fairly 
measured by the differences in the tax-rates in union free school 
districts and common school districts. As has been shown in the 

103 



previous chapter, the costs are considerably more than many com- 
munities would feel they could undertake. Under these circum- 
stances state aid should come in to supplement local effort. Experi- 
ence has shown in a number of instances in the State that where 
such well-developed schools were established in communities with 
relatively low valuations they have not been able to maintain them 
on an efficient basis under the present system of state aid, while, on 
the other hand, communities that are wealthier have not felt the 
strain to an unreasonable degree. 

In order that the differences might be seen between the advan- 
tages offered by the one-teacher rural schools and by such combined 
and extended schools as are contemplated in this recommendation, 
and also in order that proof of the practicability of this plan may be 
offered, a special study of one of these schools was made by Dr. 
LeRoy A. King, a member of the Field Staff. The consolidated 
school selected was the Orchard Park School, situated in East 
Hamburg, Erie County. It was studied with a view of ascertain- 
ing how much it would cost the district to furnish in its old one- 
teacher schools the same educational facilities now provided in its 
combined school. His account is given herewith: 

"The Consolidated Orchard Park High School, composed of Union Free 
School District No. 1 and Common School Districts Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, and 10, was 
formed in April, 1914, with the exception of district No. 9 which was dissolved 
by order of the District Superintendent in March, 1915, and amalgamated with 
the consolidated district. The school is located about 15 miles from Bufifalo in 
the town of East Hamburg. A modern well-equipped school building costing ap- 
proximately $75,000 was constructed as a result of the consolidation, which now 
accommodates 400 children, of whom 100 are enrolled in the academic-voca- 
tional high school. 

"In 1919 the faculty of the school was composed of the supervisors of the spe- 
cial activities and 17 teachers of whom eight comprise the high school faculty. 
The organization, the course of study, and the instruction are modem and pro- 
gressive. The program of studies includes the special subjects — ^physical edu- 
cation, drawing, music, industrial education, home economics — ^in charge of 
special supervisors. The school is well equipped in all departments for instruc- 
tional purposes and contains a good-sized, modern school library. 

"In assuming that it were feasible and practicable to abolish the consoHdation 
plan and to have the schools revert to the former common school district scheme, 
certain fundamental factors would have to receive careful consideration. 

"Three of the five district schools that were closed are located on plots of 
ground less than three-quarters of an acre in area, and the other two on plots of 
approximately an acre, which fact would mean that additional purchases of land 
would be necessary in order to give the children the same playground faciHties 
that they are now enjoying at the central plant, 

104 



"One of the buildings was erected approximately 13 years ago and the others 
are very old, practicaUy unfit for school purposes. All of the buildings are of 
the box-car type with one room, no basements, and with outdoor toilets, etc. 
Consequently to resume the old organization, five new buildings would be required ; 
or at least four new ones, and one greatly remodeled. 

"Two of the five buildings are improperly hghted; and four of them do not 
have a proper heating plant. Only one of the five has a patented jacketed stove 
and not any of the buildings has even a semblance of a modem ventilation 
system. Nor are there chemical toilets to be found in any of the buildings. To 
provide each one of these schools with modem heating plants, ventilating sys- 
tems, and water and toilet faciHties such as are found in the present consolidated 
building, would be exceedingly expensive for each school district. 

"Furthermore, districts No. 7 and No. 9 are so largely attended that it would 
be necessary to erect two two-room buildings or at least to remodel substantially 
by constmcting additions to two old buildings for the use of the extra teachers 
required. 

"New furniture would have to be provided in at least four of the schools; in 
fact, the District Superintendent said that it would practically be necessary to 
provide and equip five new buildings, if the individual school plants were to be 
at all comparable with the present consoHdated school. 

"In order to provide instruction on the same basis as now obtains in the con- 
solidated school, a great deal of additional material and equipment for instmc- 
tional purposes would have to be purchased, including text books, maps, globes, 
pictures, etc. Industrial education, home economics, science laboratories, and 
physical education would, of course, require special equipment entailing consid- 
erable cost for each of the five buildings, if the same facilities are to be maintained 
in the respective districts as now exist in the consoUdated school. 

"Class recitations in the present carefuUy graded consolidated school are 30 
or 40 minutes in length, while, if the schools were located in the five centers, it 
would be impossible to have class recitations longer than 10, 15 or 20 minutes, as 
now generally found in the typical one-teacher ungraded school. 

"In the consoHdated school the school lunch is also provided. This would 
mean that special equipment and facilities for furnishing school lunches would 
have to be secured for each of the five districts. 

"In view of the results of the investigation of the status of the teaching force 
in common school districts as compared with union free school districts it is 
doubtful whether teachers could be secured in these five districts with the same 
professional and educational qualifications as those teaching in the consolidated 
school even assuming that the same salaries were paid. It would also be essential 
that at least two teachers in each of the special school activities such as music, 
drawing, industrial education, domestic science, physical education, etc., be en- 
gaged to give the children in each of the outl3ang schools the same quaHty and 
amount of training that they are now receiving, by going from school to school. 
It must also be remembered in this connection that there would be considerable 
expense and unnecessary loss of time in having these teachers visit the different 
schools to carry on this work. 

"The children would naturally be deprived of the opportunities of participa- 
tion in the school activities pecuHar to a larger school unit. The Hterary society, 
the debating club, the athletic teams, the orchestra, the social opportunities — all 
of these afford means of educational and social development and are considered 
indispensable in the modern school organization. 

"It must be remembered that even if a plan such as this suggested could be 
carried on at less cost than the one now in operation it would still be necessary to 
provide high school education for all the children who had completed the eighth 
grade, inasmuch as it would certainly be impracticable to organize a high school 

105 



in each of the five outlying schools. The only logical method would be to have 
the high school pupils transported to the same central school, as is being done at 
the present time. This factor must be taken into account in comparing the cost 
of these two types of organization. 

Five common 
Consolidated unit school districts 

Capital outlay $75,000.00 $48,050.00 

(originally) 
47,000.00 
(remaining indebtedness) 

Current expenses 23,105 .54 10,257 .00 

Debt service 6,995 .80 5,285 .50 

Total amount to be raised per 

year 31,831 .06 15,542 .50 

State aid 4,728.11 3,000.00 (approx.) 

Short term loan and misc. sources 4,363 .66 

Amount to be raised by local tax 22,739 . 29 12,542 . 50 

**The items of cost in the accompanying table under the consolidated unit 
were taken from the report of the district for the fiscal year 1919-1920 and the 
amounts as Hsted are largely self-explanatory. The amount raised by local 
taxes was based on a tax-rate of nine mills, which was a considerable increase 
over the tax-rate of the individual common school districts before the consoH- 
dated project became effective. 

"In the determination of the capital outlay for the five common school dis- 
tricts it was necessary to provide for three new one-room buildings, one new 
two-room building, and an addition to an old building to accommodate two 
classes. It also includes the cost of ground, school furniture, agriculture and 
home economics equipment, and a well for each of the buildings to provide run- 
ning water and a flush system. 

"The amount of money charged to these various items was based on the 
standards used in connection with the organization of new projects in this Sur- 
vey, and also on the expert judgment of the local District Superintendent. In 
computing the current expenses of the five districts, including maintenance, 
transportation, and salaries paid to teachers and janitors, the standards were 
obtained from the prevaiHng practice both in the consolidated unit and in the 
other common school districts of the same town. The debt service includes 
$2,402.50, one- twentieth of the entire capital outlay provided annually for the 
purpose of retiring bonds. 

"In comparing the cost of education per child in the reorganization of the 
five common school districts upon the basis of the, standards herein proposed 
with the cost in the consolidated unit, the amount of money expended for cur- 
rent expenses divided by 390, the enrolment in the consoHdated school, is 
equivalent to $59 per child; while in the redistributed district schools the cost 
would be the current expenses divided by 140, the approximate number of chil- 
dren, or $73 per child. In other words, in attempting to give the children now 
attending the central school in the consolidated unit the same educational 
opportunities in their respective common school districts it would cost approxi- 
mately $14 more per child or an increased cost of 23.7 percent.'* 

Thus it is shown that the right kind of educational facilities can 
be more cheaply furnished by abandoning the one-room schools 
and transporting the children to a central school. 

io6 



3. The adoption of the community as the unit of school support 
but not as the unit of control. 

A remedy that has' been recommended by the administration 
division of the Survey for the equalization of the tax burden is the 
abolition of the school districts as taxing units and the establish- 
ment of the ^^ community unit'' in their stead. While this is a move 
in the right direction, it does not go far enough and needs to be sup- 
plemented by some plan similar to Form II described in Chapter X. 
Its effect upon the tax-rates may be summed up as follows: The 
commxmity tax-rate for schools would be approximately the aver- 
age tax-rate of the various school districts situated within it, pro- 
vided schools are maintained as in the past. This means that the 
tax-rates of those owners of property living within districts now 
having a high tax-rate would pay lower taxes for schools, while 
those residing within districts now paying low tax-rates would have 
their school taxes increased.^ 

Other benefits coming from this arrangement would be the re- 
duction in the number of tax collectors and treasurers, more effi- 
cient planning of expenditures, more economical purchasing, more 
prompt collection of taxes, more interest received from money in 
the school treasury, and better accounting, which would again re- 
sult in better keeping of costs and planning of the budget. 

While this recommendation has many advantages it does not of 
itself provide for the abolition of the small schools and for the organ- 
ization of the most efl&cient schools of the entire community. To 
the extent that it would not bring about the abolition of the small 
schools, it would not produce the economies; and to the extent that 
it did not bring about the most efl&cient school organization, it 
would not result in the highest cost efl&ciency. While this can be 
accepted as a step in the right direction, the State would not be war- 
ranted, in the judgment of this Section of the Survey, in granting aid 
in any way which will encourage poor or imperfect school organiza- 
tion. 

Bonds and Other Debts 

Another consideration of very great importance is, How shall the 
payment of the debts of the existing districts be made when a larger 
^ See pages 90 and 192. Notice, however, data are for different years. 

107 



district is established as the fiscal unit, such as, the community 
district? Experience with the township law of 1917 shows the 
impracticability of endeavoring to continue any phase of the exist- 
ing organization for the purpose of paying debts. The Survey 
recommends that the new districts assume all indebtedness of the 
districts which go to make up its component parts in just the same 
way that the new and larger district will become the possessor of 
all the property within the territory included. Any attempt to do 
otherwise will lead to a wasteful expenditure of energy and time, 
and will constitute such a source of differences of opinion among the 
various sections of the town as would seriously interfere with the 
efiiciency of the schools. While this plan or any other plan will work 
to the advantage of some people and to the disadvantage of others, 
it will not harm any person to any appreciable extent. 

Such maladjustment of past actions to new conditions is always 
apparent in reorganization of every sort. Expenditures have 
necessarily been made on the basis of the organization prevailing 
at the time. When a change in organization is made there will 
always be occasions found in which, had the reorganization been 
foreseen, certain expenditures would not have been made. Experi- 
ence has shown that the best adjustments are, in the end, made 
by the new organization taking over all the responsibilities as well 
as the authorities of the old and that to continue the old even in one 
respect hampers the operation of the new. 

School Support in Intermediate Districts 

By intermediate districts is meant a unit of territory larger than 
a community district. It may be the county or a portion of the 
county. The duties of the officers thereof will be partially local 
and partially central or state. According to a well-recognized 
principle of government each territorial unit should itself bear the 
expenses, in so far as it is able, of the functions that are per- 
formed by it or for it. While this is not the place to forecast the 
nature of the authority and responsibilities that may be placed 
upon intermediate boards, superintendents, and other officers, it 
may be laid down as a principle that those functions that are local 
in character should be defrayed by a local tax; that the State should 

io8 



pay such proportion of the expenses as are incurred in performing 
central or State functions, and that the State should also take 
into account the ability of the intermediate district to support its 
work in some such way as is shown for local districts in the treatment 
of General and Special Aid. It is recommended, therefore, that any 
intermediate board that may be constituted be given the authority 
to levy either a local tax directly upon the property contained in it 
or upon the local districts composing it in proportion to the equal- 
ized valuations thereof. It is also recommended that the State 
pay such portion of the salary of one or more of the local superin- 
tendents according to the amount of time required for performing 
state functions so that there may be a just distribution of costs 
between central and intermediate territories. Finally, it is recom- 
mended that after such districts are formed a study be made of 
their relative abiHties to meet their local expenses and that some 
such forms of General and Special Aid, similar to those recommended 
for local districts, be instituted. In this way General Aid will take 
care of any inability to support the usual functions, while Special 
Aid may be used to support types of supervision that intermediate 
boards would not ordinarily undertake. 



log 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE THEORY OF STATE SUPPORT OF LOCAL 

SCHOOLS 

Historical Background 

ORIGINALLY local schools were supported entirely from 
local sources. State support arose from the distribution 
of the income from permanent State school funds or from 
distribution of special funds or direct appropriations from the legis- 
lature. As the money from these sources became available, the 
question arose as to how it should be distributed. Since local self 
government was strong throughout all the states at that time, 
naturally each community desired to obtain as large a share as 
possible. Various solutions were reached and in some states the 
first view taken was that inasmuch as the people of the various 
communities had paid state taxes in proportion to the valuation of 
their properties, the school money now available for distribution 
should be returned to the local communities in the same propor- 
tion. In other states the plan adopted was to distribute the income 
on the basis of the total number of persons paying taxes. Both of 
these plans were based on the idea of the rights of local communities 
to share in state money. 

Later it was proposed that such income be distributed upon the 
basis of the number of children of school age. Improvements upon 
this plan were represented in the distributions — (1) according to enrol- 
ment, (2) according to average number belonging, (3) according to 
average daily attendance, and (4) according to aggregate atten- 
dance. Each of these methods recognized the needs of the various 
districts rather than their rights and was indicative of a stronger 
degree of state consciousness. They show that a beginning had been 
made upon the part of the State in its desire to promote the best 

no 



interests of the schools in all the local districts of the State. The 
grants upon the basis of attendance incorporated an additional 
element in that better attendance in schools was promoted and, in 
the case of aggregate attendance, longer terms of schools were 
established. Thus was recognized for the first time the principle of 
stimulating each district to higher efiiciency in the conduct of its 
schools. 

The teacher basis, or quota as it is commonly known in the State 
of New York, differs from those of the previous group in that it 
recognizes the element of cost in the conduct of the schools. The 
expense of schools is not affected so much by the attendance of 
pupils or by the number of pupils enrolled as it is by the number of 
teachers employed. However, the teacher basis totally lacks the 
stimulation of districts to secure good attendance unless it is in 
some way combined with the attendance basis. 

Both the pupil and teacher bases represent efforts to distribute 
the money in proportion to the needs of the schools without regard 
to any right which the citizens of the various communities might 
have by virtue of their membership in the State or by their paying 
taxes to the support of the central government. 

Combinations of these various plans have been established in 
various states of the Union. The plan prevalent in New York pre- 
vious to 1885, by which one-third of the state school money was 
distributed on the basis of population, one-third on the basis of av- 
erage daily attendance and one-third on the basis of number of 
teachers, was a typical combination. The basis of population 
represents a remnant from the old plan which probably had to be 
retained so as to carry the newer elements of the plan through 
the Legislature. 

In more recent years an account has been taken of the amount of 
property taxable for school purposes in the various local communi- 
ties, particularly with those school districts that have low valua- 
tions. Such a plan as this is found in a number of the New England 
States. The best thought at the present time favors the extension 
of the plan upward so as to include districts of higher valuations. 

Another element of considerable importance, which has not yet 
been incorporated into the minds of legislators, is the amount of 

III 



money that districts spend in support of schools. While the 

property valuation of a district represents *^its ability '^ to support 

schools, it is not in any way an index of the quality of teacher 

employed, of the schoolhouse erected, or of the types of equipment 

furnished. It is possible for two districts to have equal ability but 

to expend widely different amounts in the support of schools — one 

will support schools liberally and the other in a niggardly fashion. 

Whether it is desirable that a state should take into account in 

the distribution of its funds "the effort" that districts make will 

receive attention in the further treatment of this question. It is 

desirable first to consider the theory and principles underlying school 

support. 

Theory of School Support 

It has been found necessary to create states in order to secure 
protection, liberty and justice, and to promote individual welfare, 
but at the same time a very large measure of control has been given 
back by these states to the local communities in order that each 
individual may have the largest practicable control of those govern- 
mental affairs with which he comes in immediate contact. Control 
of the tax-rate and of the expenditure of money raised in local 
communities is one of the most essential features of our democracy 
and is highly prized by all American citizens. 

We must expect, therefore, as a principle of the financial adminis- 
tration of schools, that local support shall be fimdamental in any 
system that may be established. It does not follow, however, that 
school support should be entirely local. There are certain reasons 
why it should not be so. It has been shown in this study (Chapter 
V) that there are great differences in the ability of various districts 
to support schools, and that it is difficult for many of them to 
maintain schools of even poor quality. It has also been shown 
that there are great differences among different communities in 
their conceptions of a proper standard of school for an American 
conamunity (Chapter IV). Some communities seem to realize 
that the future of our nation depends very largely upon the char- 
acter of education given in the schools, and that the future happi- 
ness and success in life of their children are likewise dependent 
upon the kind of schooling they receive. On the contrary, there are 

112 



other communities, many of which are well-to-do, that seem to look 
upon the school not as an opportunity for them to serve their coun- 
try and to promote the welfare of their children, but rather as a 
burdensome thing which has been imposed upon them from with- 
out, or, if they do accept the school as a worthy institution, their 
standards of what a good school should be are so low that the inter- 
ests of the State as a whole, the well-being of the particular com- 
munity in which the school is situated, and the future happiness 
of the children living within it are each and all affected in a harmful 
manner. 

Under such circumstances as these, when districts are unable to 
support schools, or if able, are not willing to support schools of a 
quality corresponding to their wealth, the question arises whether 
the state government representing all the people cannot and should 
not do something to improve the conditions in such districts. In 
case of invasion by foreign troops or in case of mob violence which 
cannot be controlled by the local authorities, all would say that 
state money should be spent in restoring peace and order, not only 
to benefit the communities in question, but also to insure the 
future well-being of the remainder of the State. While the effects 
of a poor school upon a particular community and upon the por- 
tions of the State lying outside of it are not so apparent nor so 
immediate as those of an invasion or mob, nevertheless the harm is 
just as certain and expenditure of state funds is as fully warranted 
in this case as in the former. It is also true that if state money 
can be used to stamp out an epidemic of tuberculosis or hog cholera, 
it can likewise be used to prevent inferior teaching. 

Furthermore, the advancement of the general welfare through the 
expenditure of state money has been just as generally recognized as 
has the maintenance of peace and order and protection from disease. 
State money is spent to promote state fairs, experiments in agricul- 
ture, and extension courses in a variety of subjects relating to farm- 
ing. Through such expenditures as these the standards as to what 
constitutes good farming are constantly rising, and not only the 
farmers, but all who consume the products of the farm are benefited 
thereby. By the giving of instruction, it pays all the people of the 
State to stimulate farmers, to obtain the most and the best from 
8 113 



the land they possess. It pays also to grant rewards to those 
farmers and to those boys and girls of the farm who have done 
particularly meritorious work. The benefits that come from this 
sort of reward through the stimulation of all people of the State 
are much greater than the cost. 

It is the same in education as in farming. The State should 
always do something to stimulate every school district to do its 
best. Rewards ought to be granted likewise to school districts, 
teachers and pupils who do particularly meritorious pieces of work. 
The benefits that will result for the entire State, not to mention 
those that will come to the particular district, will be much greater 
than the cost. 

Thus far we have been speaking of the reasons why a State should 
grant support from its state government to local schools in order to 
make support most efiicient. It is important for us now to consider 
in what way aid should be administered in order to promote the 
highest degree of efiiciency in the machinery of state and local 
school administration. Support of schools and control of schools 
are closely inter-related and they should be made to strengthen 
each other. 

This phase of the subject has two aspects: (1) State agencies of 
control, and (2) local agencies. State aid should be distributed in 
such a way as to promote the efiicient participation of citizens in 
the exercise of citizenship. The converse of this proposition is 
that it should not be so administered as to promote bureaucracy or 
autocratic control in either state, county, or local education offices. 
This can be accomplished if, on the one hand, the withholding of 
funds by state ofiicers is exercised only in proportion to the serious- 
ness of the shortcoming; and if, on the other hand, right action 
unfailingly meets its reward. The facts are that in a fairly large 
number of the communities of every state we need a change in 
attitude on the part of the citizens toward the schools. These 
communities can be frequently led to change their vote and to sub- 
stitute right action for wrong action over a sufiiciently long period 
of years to bring about a fundamental change in their attitudes 
toward the benefits of education. That which a citizen learns 
through the operation of his own action becomes established, while 

114 



that which is forced upon him against his will he opposes. It is, 
therefore, fundamental in state aid that we leave final decision to 
the local communities, and allow them to choose what they think 
is best. In the doing of this we will have stronger agencies in the 
making of a better government and a better society. 

This view is in harmony with the principle of business manage- 
ment which requires that superior officers should make it their duty 
to furnish those conditions which will permit and stimulate sub- 
ordinates to give their best services. Likewise state school officers 
should embrace every opportunity to gain the fullest possible 
knowledge of local conditions, to formulate plans in the light of 
that knowledge, to stimulate local communities to adopt these 
plans (for it must be remembered that local school ofiicers are not 
responsible to state school officers as are superintendents in fac- 
tories to the managers of business enterprises) and to outline every 
possible means of improving the efficiency of the local schools. 
The system of state aid which does not take cognizance of local 
contacts and which does not stimulate local interest does not pro- 
mote the highest efficiency either in the local or central ofiices or in 
the system as a whole. 

If a system of state aid is working properly, not only are the most 
advanced districts encouraged and thus the entire body kept mov- 
ing, but also those districts which are lagging behind are constantly 
stimulated to come up to the standards that have already been 
adopted through the experience of the more progressive districts. 

Objects of State Aid. — The objects of state aid may then be 
summed up as follows: State aid should be administered in such a 
way as to make good schools possible in all communities of the 
state, so that no community may have a reasonable excuse for a 
poor school. It ought also to stimulate every school district in the 
state to have better schools, thereby constantly raising the standard 
of education and promoting the continual progress of the life of all 
the people in the state. It also ought to reward any school that 
takes a new step in an efficient manner because of the meritorious 
action that such a step indicates. It should do all these things, not 
only to protect the state from ignorance in the exercise of the ballot 
and to provide leaders, but also to promote in every possible way 

115 



the individual welfare of every person in it. In applying this prin- 
ciple to schools, it means that all forms of aid should be utilized 
so as to guarantee for each child that education which is best to 
fit him for life, irrespective of the particular community in which 
he may happen to live. It is upon such grounds as these that the 
state is justified in taking, through taxation, a citizen's money and 
expending it in places other than those in which he resides. It is 
done because the state as a whole and in most cases each citizen 
will benefit from it in far greater proportion than the cost. 

Proportion of Central and Local Support 
It is difficult to determine in just what proportion the support 
of local schools should be distributed between the state and local 
governments. Since the justification of state aid rests largely on 
the differences of ability of local districts to support the schools and 
upon differences in conceptions in the various districts as to the 
proper standards and scope of schools, it would seem to follow that 
the amount of state aid would be somewhat in direct proportion to 
the extent of the differences in both respects. If that be true, it is 
evident then that the proportion cannot be well determined for any 
state until a careful study of the conditions in these respects is 
made. It would seem, too, that a correct proportion for one state 
would not be the right one for another. There would probably be 
so wide a variation among the various states that it would not be 
possible to express the proportion in a single figure. 

Another factor of great importance is the taxation system which 
prevails in the State. A state making large use of income, inheri- 
tance and business taxes collected through a central or state agency 
would be expected to distribute to local governments larger amounts 
of money than those in which such taxes are not levied. The ques- 
tion of the amount of special funds given by the state to the local 
governments rather than to school districts should also be taken 
into consideration. The great variety of conditions and the com- 
plexity of the tax system in many states make it very difficult to 
give a satisfactory answer to this question. Indeed, so far as the 
author knows, no one has as yet attempted it. Moreover it is a 
question for a taxation expert to answer rather than for a student 

ii6 



in school administration. It is important, however, that any 
answer which may be offered will take into account these considera- 
tions which influence the highest efficiency of the local schools. 

Principles Relating to State Support 

A summary of what has been said thus far may be stated in the 
form of certain fundamental principles as follows: 

1. Local support is fundamental. 

2. The local units for the support of schools should contain, in so 
far as practicable, enough property taxable for school purposes to 
raise that portion of the expenses of the school which it is believed 
should be borne by the local districts without an undue burden 
upon the owners of property. 

3. Some portion of the support of local schools should come from 
the state government, the amount being dependent upon certain 
factors, exact standards for which have not been scientifically 
determined, but which will vary in the different states. 

4. The administration of state aid should be such as to increase 
the efficient participation of citizens in a democratic form of govern- 
ment. 

5. The purpose of state aid should be not only to protect the state 
from ignorance, to provide intelligent workers in every field of 
activity, and to educate leaders, but also to guarantee to each child, 
irrespective of where he happens to live, equal opportunity to that 
of any other child for the education which will best fit him for life. 

Criterla for Determining Efficiency of State Support 

These principles and the considerations upon which they are 
based warrant certain criteria which may be used to determine the 
efficiency of any plan of central support of schools. Any scheme of 
state support should be arranged so as to comply with as many of 
the following criteria as possible: 

1. The efficient participation of citizens in the responsibilities of 
citizenship should be promoted by making the extent of the state's 
contribution depend upon the legislative action of the local board. 

2. The authority of the central or state office to withhold funds 
should be fixed in such a way as to promote neither autocratic 

117 



control, on the one hand, nor supineness of action, upon the other. 
This will be gained by requiring that the amounts to be withheld by 
reason of deficiencies in the local school districts be graded and made 
dependent upon the extent of the shortcoming and the number of 
previous delinquencies. 

3. The state should encourage by grants the introduction of new 
features into the schools, especially those which would not ordi- 
narily of their own volition be undertaken by many communities. 

4. The districts should receive support in inverse proportion to 
their true valuations back of each school unit (as a teacher and her 
school) in order that the equalization of educational opportunity 
among all the children of the State can be the more easily secured. 
The point in the scale of equalized valuations per teacher to which 
this equalization should be carried is to be determined by differ- 
ences in wealth and in educational interest in the local communities 
as well as by the amounts of money available and by the compelling 
necessity of preserving and stimulating democratic control of schools 
in local communities. 

5. Efficiency in conduct of schools should be promoted by increas- 
ing the state grants whenever the true tax-rate is increased and by 
lowering it whenever the local tax is decreased, since these usually 
reveal increased and decreased efficiency in the qualifications of 
teachers employed, in courses of study taught, in supplies and 
equipment furnished and in every other factor that goes to make 
up a good school. 

6. The plan of state aid should be so framed that it will measure 
precisely the elements involved and will respond promptly and 
surely to any change in the local districts affecting them. 

It should be noted in connection with these criteria that they do 
not diminish in any way the control which the State legislature has 
over the schools of any district. On the contrary, their observance 
will assist in the realization of such standards and practices as may 
be set up by it or under authority granted by it. 



ii8 



CHAPTER IX 

PRESENT SYSTEM OF GENERAL AID IN THE 
STATE OF NEW YORK 

THE present system of state aid for the support of schools in 
the State of New York may be divided into two divisions: 
(1) General aid, and (2) Special forms of aid. They will 
be discussed in order. 

The present plan of General Aid in New York had its beginning 
about 1885 in the estabhshment of the "teacher quota.'' In 1898 
the "district quota'' was combined with it and since that time they 
have formed the bases for distribution of a very large share of the 
state support of schools. In the case of both of these quotas there 
was uniform application throughout the entire State, grants being 
the same for all teachers irrespective of where they were employed 
or the salaries paid and for all districts irrespective of whether they 
were city schools or rural schools. The teacher quota, which came 
first, favored the larger districts while the district quota favored the 
smaller districts. Differentiation in the district quotas was made 
soon after 1900, when larger quotas were given to the poorest dis- 
tricts, the amounts varying somewhat in accordance with their 
valuation. In 1920 the differentiation in the teacher quotas was 
introduced, recognizing for the first time differences in the classes of 
districts and giving also signal recognition to differences in valua- 
tions in districts having one teacher. This is known as the "addi- 
tional teacher quota." 

The district quotas (based on the assessed valuations and not 
the equalized valuations) are as follows: 

Assessed valuation State aid 

$20,000 and less $200 

20,001-^0,000 175 

40,001-60,000 150 

Over 60,000 125 

iig 



The ^Heacher quota/' given to each district in the State having 
more than one teacher, is $100 for each teacher in addition to the 
first. The additional teacher quota law passed in 1920, under 
which grants were made for the first time during the year 1920-21, 
has quotas varying from $200 to $600. 

Under all of these laws combined each of the following districts or 
classes of districts secures from the State for every teacher approx- 
imately the amounts indicated below: 

New York City $700 

Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, New 

Rochelle, Tonawanda, White Plains 650 

Other cities of 50,000 or more 550 

Cities of less than 50,000 and villages under superintendents 450 

Other union free school districts 450 

Other schools employing more than one teacher 400 

School districts employing one teacher and having an as- 
sessed valuation of $100,000 or more 325 

Assessed valuation of 90,000-99,000 355-328 

80,000-89,000 385-358 

70,000-79,000 415-388 

60,000-69,000 470-418 

50,000-59,000 500-473 

40,000-49,000 555-503 

30,000-39,000 585-558 

20,000-29,000 640-588 

10,000-19,000 670-643 

1,000- 9,000 722-673 

Criticism of New York Plan of State Support 

All Classes of Districts. — In evaluating the New York plan 
of state school support by the application of the criteria (see p. 
117), it will be best first to test it in its general aspects so far as 
that is possible. From this point of view it may be said that it 
does not satisfy the first criterion, inasmuch as the amount of aid 
given is not affected in any way by the quality of schools maintained 
by the local school board so long as minimum standards are main- 
tained. Second, like most state plans, it is weak in that the State 
Education Ofiicer is required in almost all grants to withhold the 
entire grant or none of it. Such officers in all states find it necessary 
to threaten the withholding of funds because of some shortcoming 
on the part of a district but do not carry out their threats because of 
the practical consequences that would come to the district or to the 
state office by such an act. It would increase the efficiency of 

I20 



local schools if the State Education OflSce had the authority to with- 
hold such proportion of any grant as the gravity of the shortcoming 
and the number of previous delinquencies, if any, justified. The 
third criterion applies mostly to the forms of Special Aid which will 
be treated later. The sixth criterion is not adequately complied 
with as will be shown in part in the next section as far as precision 
of measurement is concerned. Coming now to the fourth and fifth 
criteria it will promote clearness if we treat the various classes of 
districts separately. 

Common School Districts. — In allowing to common school 
districts three dollars for every thousand dollars of assessed valua- 
tion of less than $100,000 the State gives partial recognition to the 
fourth criterion. However, the equalization plan is faulty from this 
point of view in at least two respects. The point at which the 
attempted equalization ceases causes it to cover only about one-half 
of the common school districts; in other words, the point is not high 
enough. Viewing all the schools of New York from the standpoint of 
the State it may be said to be composed of as many fundamental 
units of organization as there are teachers. Distributing the 54,420 
teachers in the State among the various school units only about 
10,500 are found in the common school districts and about 7,500 of 
them in the union free school districts, or a total of 18,000 in the so- 
called rural schools together, almost exactly one-third of the total 
number. Now, when it is remembered that the median equalized 
valuations back of each teacher in the common and union free school 
districts is about $108,000 while in the cities and villages it is about 
$183,000, approximately seventy-five percent more, it follows that 
the median amount of wealth behind each teacher for the entire State 
must be considerably larger. It would seem, therefore, that in order 
to put the rural school district as a whole upon a more nearly equal 
plane with the city districts the point of equalization should be 
placed much higher than it now is. At just what point it should be 
placed will be considered in the next chapter dealing with the pro- 
posed revised form of state aid. 

This criterion is also violated in that the plan does not equalize 
the cost burden among the districts having valuations of less than 
$100,000. The salary for a teacher for the minimum term of 36 

121 



weeks at $20 a week is $720. Assuming that the other expenses of 
the school equal one-fourth of the teacher's salary and excluding 
altogether necessary outlays, $900 is a reasonable amount for a 
school of the lowest grades to spend. Thus a district of $10,000 
valuation receiving $670 from the State would have to raise $230 
locally in order to have a minimum standard school. This is 
equivalent to a tax of 23 mills. On the other hand, a district having 
an assessed valuation of $60,000 would find it necessary to levy only 
approximately the tax of seven mills, while a district of $100,000 
would have to levy a tax of only five and three-quarters mills. 
Thus the lower valuation districts are at a very great disadvantage. 

Applying now the fifth criterion, it may be seen by reference to 
Table 36 in Chapter VI that the tax-rates for varying valuations 
have a wide range. If the reader will turn back to this table and 
imagine the substitution in the left-hand column of the grants from 
the State given above in lieu of the corresponding valuations he will 
readily conclude that the plan fails in a considerable degree to give 
to districts in proportion to the efforts made by them to support 
schools. 

In a further study upon this point a correlation table showing the 
relationship between the amounts of total expenses per teacher and 
the grants made by the State has been prepared for all the districts 
having a one-teacher school in the first supervisory districts of 
Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties as is given herewith in 
Table 38. It presents in a striking way the fact that those districts 
which spend the least amount of money are given the most, while 
those that spend the largest amounts are given the least. The co- 
efficient of correlation according to Pearson is — .83, which indicates 
high inverse correspondence. This is to be accounted for by what 
has been shown above; namely, that the low valuation districts 
cannot have the minimum amount required to run a school without 
an excessive tax. The plan of state support fails entirely to take 
into account any effort which a district makes to maintain a proper 
school. The district which gives good support receives no more 
than one which neglects its responsibilities. The plan thus pro- 
motes a tendency among rural districts to maintain cheap schools. 
Another effect of the plan as thus constituted is to establish the 

122 



habit in these lower valuation districts of looking upon the State as 
the almoner of the district and thus to weaken the sense of self-re- 
sponsibility. In case the plan were so reorganized as to give districts 

Table 38. — Relationship Between Amount of Total Expense Per 
Teacher and the Grants Made by the State in Accordance with the 
Equalized Valuation Per Teacher in the First Supervisory District 
OF Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins Counties Respectively 



Amount of total 


State grants and equalized valuation 




expenses per 
teacher 


$325 
$100,000 


$355 
$90,000 


$385 
$80,000 


$415 
$70,000 


$470 
$60,000 


$500 
$50,000 


$555 
$40,000 


$585 
$30,000 


$640 
$20,000 


$670 
$10,000 


$700 
$9,999 




$1,400 
1,350 
1,300 
1,250 
1,200 

1,150 
1,100 
1,050 
1,000 
950 

900 

850 
800 


1 
1 

2 
3 
1 
3 
6 

9 

2 
3 


i 


1 

1 
1 


1 


1 

1 
2 


1 

1 

Mec 


2 

1 
ian 


"1 


1 
1 

'2 


. . 




2 

1 

i 

2 
3 
1 

5 
7 

14 

5 
8 


750 
700 

650 
600 
550 
500 


1 




2 

1 

6 


1 


2 
1 


2 
1 

'2 


2 
4 

1 


3 
3 

2 

2 


1 
2 

3 
3 
1 


2 
4 

7 
3 


2 
1 


18 
16 

14 
10 

1 


Total 


32 


1 


2 


7 


6 


8 


13 


14 


16 


3 


108 



Median equalized valuation per teacher $50,000 

Median amount of total expenses per teacher $787 



in proportion to their local tax-rate as well as in proportion to their 
deficiencies in valuation, these unfortunate results could be avoided. 
Such a modified plan is suggested in the next chapter, Chapter X. 

123 



Union Free School Districts. — All union free school districts 
receive under the state plan of support the same amount per teacher. 
Pursuing the same method of criticism just outlined for common 



Table 39. — Equalized 


Valuation and Equalized Tax-Taxes 
Free School Districts 


FOR 34 Union 


Equalized 

valuations in 

thousands 


Equalized tax-rates 


Total 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


22 


$30 
40 
50 
60 
70 

80 

90 

100 

110 
120 

130 
140 
150 
160 
170 

180 
190 
200 
210 
220 

230 
240 
250 
260 
270 
280 
290 


1 


1 


1 


1 
1 

1 

1 

2 


2 
3 


1 

1 

1 
1 

4 


1 

1 

2 


1 
1 

2 


1 
1 

1 
1 

4 


"l 
1 

3 


1 
1 

1 
3 


. .-' 


1 
1 
















1 
1 

2 
1 
2 

3 
2 
5 
1 
3 

3 
1 
1 
1 

2 

*i 
1 

*i 


Totals 


1 


1 


2 


6 


32 



school districts and using the facts presented in Table 39 relative to 
equalized valuations and tax-rates, it is clear that both the fourth 

124 



and fifth criteria are not observed. In fact the phght of the union 
free school districts having an assessed valuation below $90,000 per 
teacher is worse than that of the common school districts. 

Villages and Cities. — An absolute disregard of the very im- 
portant and essential facts regarding both valuations and tax-rates 



Table 40. — Equalized Valuation Per Teacher and Equalized Tax-Rates 
IN Cities Receiving $450 State Aid 



Equalized valuations 


Equalized tax-rates 


Total 


in thousands 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


$90 
100 
110 
120 
130 

140 
150 
160 
170 
180 

190 
200 
210 
220 
230 

240 
250 
260 
270 

340 


1 


1 
1 

1 


1 
1 

2 

1 

1 
1 

1 


1 

4 

1 

1 

1 


1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

2 

1 


1 

2 
1 
1 

1 


1 
2 

1 

"l 


1 

1 
1 


1 


1 
2 
2 
3 
2 

1 
8 
3 
5 
4 

'3 
1 
1 
1 

3 
1 
1 

1 

1 


Total 


1 


3 


8 


8 


8 


6 


6 


3 


1 


44 



is manifest in the present plan of state support to villages and cities. 
Certain of these villages and cities, as is shown in Tables 40 and 41 
for villages and 42 and 43 for cities, are in great need of aid from the 
State because of their low valuations and high tax-rates, while, on the 

125 



other hand, others who receive just as high grants are fully able to 
take care of themselves. 

Operation of Present Law in Cities and Villages. — It is evi- 
dent that in order for needy and worthy districts to receive aid, 



Table 41. — Equalized Valuation Per Teacher and Equalized Tax-Rates 
IN Villages Receiving $450 State Aid 



Equalized valuation 


Equalized tax-rates 


Total 


in thousands 


s 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


$100 
110 
120 
130 
140 

150 
160 
170 
180 
190 

200 
210 
220 
230 
240 

250 
260 
270 

280 
300 

320 
380 




1 

1 
1 


1 

1 
1 
1 

"l 
1 

1 

1 

1 




1 

2 
1 

1 
1 
2 

i 


"l 

1 

1 

1 
1 

2 


1 
1 

1 
1 




1 
1 

• 




2 




• 




1 
1 


• 


1 

* 

■ 


1 
3 
1 
4 
4 

4 

2 
2 
3 

2 

1 

3 
2 

2 

i 

1 
1 

3 
1 


Total 


3 


10 


9 


8 


4 


2 


2 




2 


1 


41 



those districts which are wealthier must contribute to the State 
more than they get back from it. It seems desirable in view of the 
facts revealed in Tables 40-43 to make a study of cities from this 
point of view based upon amounts paid to the State through the mill 

126 



and a half school tax. It is well to point out, too, that a misunder- 
standing has existed among citizens generally in making such com- 
parisons due to the fact that it is assumed that the total amount 
coming from the State in the form of district and teacher grants was 



Table 42. — Relationship Between Equalized Valuation 
Tax-Rate for Cities Receiving $550 


AND Equalized 




Equalized tax-rates 






Equalized valuations 






Total 


in thousands 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


$170 
180 
190 
200 
210 










X 




1 


220 
230 
240 
250 
260 


X 


> 


< 


X 






1 
1 


270 
280 
290 
300 
310 




> 


< 




X 


X 


2 

i 


320 
330 
340 
350 
360 




] 




X 






*i 


370 

380 
390 
















Total 


1 


2 


2 


2 


1 


8 











derived from this school tax. As a matter of fact, only 61.7 percent 
has come from this source, the difference being made up by the in- 
come received by the State from other sources. In making the 
comparison, therefore, between the amounts paid in on this tax and 

127 



the amount received from state aid it was necessary to take only 
61.7 percent of the receipts from public money. These amounts 
were set over against the amounts paid by the respective cities on 
account of the tax. 



Table 43. — Relationship Between Equattzed Valuations and Equalized 
Tax-Rate for Cities Receiving $650 State Aid 


Equalized 


Equalized tax-rates 




valuations 
in thousands 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


Total 


$170 
180 
190 
200 
210 






. • 


X 




X 


X 


1 

i 
"i 


220 
230 
240 
250 
260 


A 








• • 


X 




i 


270 
280 
290 
300 
310 


X 




•■ 










i 


320 
330 
340 
350 
360 


















370 
380 
390 
400 and over^ 


• • 




X 


X 








1 
i 


Total 


1 




1 


1 




3 


1 


7 



1 New York, $700. 

The differences were found to be both upon the plus and minus 
sides, certain cities paying the State more than they received in re- 
turn, other cities receiving more than they paid. The results of the 
study are brought together in Table 44, which allocates each of the 

128 



Table 44. — Equalized Tax-Rate and the Amount of Money Received by 
Cities from the State More or Less on the Basis of the Amount Con- 
tributed BY Them 



Amount received 
from State 



Total 



f-200 

- 190 

- 180 

- 170 

- 160 

- 150 

- 140 

- 130 

- 120 

- 110 

- 100 
-90 
-80 
-70 
-60 

-50 
-40 
-30 
-20 
- 10 



+ 10 
+ 20 
+ 30 
+ 40 

+ 50 
+ 60 
+ 70 
+ 80 
+ 90 

+ 100 
+ 110 
+ 120 
+ 130 
+ 140-149 



Equalized tax-rate 



10 



Total 



29 



129 



various cities as to the number of dollars per teacher that they 
received from the State, more or less, than they paid in. Those 
receiving more from the State are indicated by the plus sign and are 
shown in the lower half of the table; those receiving less are found 
in the upper half. They are distributed in the various columns 
according to the equalized tax-rates. Thus it will be seen that al- 
though cities with the highest tax-rates more frequently receive more 
than they pay in, nevertheless there are many instances of cities 
with the same tax-rate, some of which are in the upper group and 
others in the lower. This is not in accordance with sound principles 
of state school support as set forth in the criteria given above. The 
law at present takes account of neither the district's ability nor the 
effort which it puts forth to support schools. 

Plans For Apportionment of School Money in Certain Other 

States 

The fundamental part of the method of the apportionment of 
state support of schools in New York State belongs to that group of 
states which emphasize the ' 'teacher basis . ' ' There are several vari- 
ations of this type all of which are improvements upon the original 
form, namely, that of giving the same amount for every teacher in 
the state. California and New Hampshire have defined a teacher 
in terms of average daily attendance and thus combined the teacher 
and attendance bases in a single form. New Jersey and Massa- 
chusetts have established varying amounts of money for varying 
types of positions — the more important positions and those re- 
quiring higher qualifications receiving the larger grants. New York 
combines in a peculiar way with its *Heacher basis" the condition 
that the recognition of property valuations be taken into account. 
The Massachusetts plan differs from it in that the unit for measur- 
ing the differences among the various districts is the valuation per 
pupil rather than the valuation per teacher as in New York State. 
The Massachusetts plan is like that of New York in that the differ- 
entiations are made only in the case of the lower valuation districts. 

A careful study of these plans, which are among the best plans in 
the United States, reveals the fact that certain of them, on the one 
hand, stimulate local districts to employ superior teachers and to 

130 



maintain good attendance for longer terms and that, on the other 
hand, certain other states endeavor to lighten the financial burden 
of the poorer districts. None of them, however, except that of 
Massachusetts, combines both of these objects in a single unified 
plan. For this reason it should receive careful consideration. 

State aid in Massachusetts is divided into two parts: Part I pro- 
vides that either $100, $150, or $200 shall be given for each teacher, 
principal, supervisor, or superintendent in every city or town, the 
amounts varying with professional training or experience. These 
amounts are increased in those towns having assessed valuations 
of less then $4,500 per pupil based on the net average member- 
ship of the day schools. These increased grants range from $50 per 
teacher or officer in towns having a valuation per pupil of $4,000 
but less than[$4,500 to $350 in those towns that have a valuation per 
pupil of less than $2,000. 

Part II makes still further grants to those towns having a valua- 
tion of less than $2,500,000 (without regard to number of teachers), 
which in order to conduct their schools are compelled to levy a tax 
of over 5 mills. The amount paid is based upon the difference be- 
tween the total expenses of the schools (subject to certain deductions 
above maximum standards of salaries and expenses per teacher) 
and the amount received from the State under Part I. These 
additional grants range from one-half the difference between the 
expenses and the previous state grant to one-half the differekice less 
the proceeds of a 5 mill tax. 

While this is not the proper place in which to discuss this plan in 
detail, it deserves consideration as one which seeks to combine in one 
unified plan those features necessary to satisfy the criteria which 
have been set up earlier in this chapter. In differentiating between 
the districts on the basis of attendance for educational grants and in 
going so far as to match dollar for dollar with the district when these 
grants are not sufficient, it stimulates the various local communities 
to provide better schools. The plan is to be commended in that it 
places a maximum limit for expenditures, and attempts to equalize 
the educational burden among the various towns. 

Its weaknesses are twofold: (1) The grants have not been 
worked out with careful precision. The differences in the salaries 

131 



paid different classes of teachers do not represent the differences in 
actual costs in any of the districts. The differences in the educa- 
tional grants ranging from $100 to $350 are not in proportion to the 
differences in the tax-rates necessary to maintain efficient schools in 
the districts with the valuations named. (2) In its efforts to meet 
deficiencies it does not place the various districts on the same equal- 
ity to the degree that is desirable. It uses the pupil rather than the 
teacher as the valuation unit and thus fails to secure as precise an 
adjustment with actual costs. Other objections to it are its com- 
plexity and the difficulty that it seems districts might have in es- 
timating the amounts of money to be received from the State, which 
should in turn make it difficult to properly prepare the budget. 
This system of state aid recognizes most closely the principle rec- 
ommended in the study. In its details it differs widely from those 
recommended herewith, as will be seen from the reading of the fol- 
lowing chapter. 



132 



CHAPTER X 

THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR APPORTIONMENT 
OF GENERAL AID 

THE point has now been reached when it is necessary to out- 
Hne a system of state subsidies for aid of local schools that will 
satisfy the principles and criteria set forth in Chapter VIIL 
It is divided into two parts — General Aid and Special Aid. The 
former is presented in this chapter, and the latter in Chapter XL 
While both parts are in accordance with the body of principles and 
criteria, as a whole. General Aid satisfies more particularly the 
fourth and fifth, and Special Aid, the third criterion. 

Four different forms of General Aid are offered, designated as 
Forms I, II, III and IV. Each is a variant of a single scheme 
which recognizes both the ability and effort of the various school 
districts to support schools. Form I is fundamental, while the other 
three are modifications of it, made either to improve it, as in the 
case of Form II, or to meet the present legal limitations placed upon 
the tax-rates of certain cities in the State, as in Forms HI and IV. 
Form IV differs from Form HI in much the same way as Form II 
differs from Form I. Tables are given to show exactly how much 
any district in the State would receive under the operation of Forms 
I, II, and HI. The table for Form IV can be so easily produced 
from the tables for Forms II and HI that it does not seem necessary 
to take the space to present it here. 

Form I 

An understanding of Form I is necessary to the comprehension of 
the other forms. Table 45 shows the amount of General Aid that 
would be given per teacher to districts under Form I when the 
equalized or true millage and the equalized or true valuation of the 
taxable property back of each teacher are known. 

133 







1 


a; 

SI 


•^ <N (T) Tf^ li-) 

es (>) ^ ^ ^ 


ic ir> 1/5 1/^ ITS 

vot>.«avO 

\0«OrJ<Pr>P0 

,-1 _| ,_( «_4 ,-4 


ioio»oio»o 

T-s ?SPO T^iO 
PN '-I OOnOO 
,^ ^-i ^-t 


lO to to to to 

vot^wao 

t^vOtO<<^"^ 


5sa 


THCNCOxt 




ioio»o»o to 

■^rc P^ '-" O 
0\0 »H CSPO 


io»o to toto 

OvXt^vOtO 
PD ■^tovO^- 
^ ^ ^ <,H ^ 


4©= 




a; 


t^ CN t^ (^<1 t^ 

aaoot^'O 


t^ OOO •^fO 

_| ^-4 tH «H ▼>( 


I--. <N t^ fN t^ 

'^J^vot^OvO 

^ O Ov « 00 


fSPD tOOOO 
t^vOtO-^PD 


It! 


ro «<r> oo<^ 

■^ (N »H OvOO 
■r-t CN cs ro 


00 ff) 00 re 00 
vOtCfOCSO 
TjH lo vo r^ 00 


PD OOPO OOPO 
Ost^OrJ^fO 
WOvO-^CS 

»-t 1-t TH 


OOPD«PDOO 
•^O Wt^to 
PDrt^Tt^tosO 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 




1 




g8S§§ 

ooxr^voio 


00 O CN •^ VO 
rfi rt< ro fv) i-H 


OOOvWt^ 


OOOCN^VO 
vOvOtOT^CD 


So? 

3sa 




Tetovo vOt^ 


§g8iS 

ooaoo^ 


OOOOO 
TfHfNOOOvO 
«NPD "t-^io 


■•-1 
4^ 




0) 


vooO'-<fr)vo 


00-^ re ^00 
f<5 (yj CS ^ O 

,-H T-4 T-l tH ^-H 


■.-1 PO O 00 -fH 
O O\00r^ t-* 


PDOOO^PD 

VOtOTf Tt*PD 


3sa 


OOroOOfO 00 
CD '-^ 00 O PO 


CD 00<ri OOpO 

THOOOfO»-H 


00 PO 00 CD 00 
OOOPD ■^ 00 
t^OOOvOO 


PD OOPD OOPD 
vOPD^OOO 
•^(NPDCD ^ 


O 


1 






Ov ?S»0 00 -^ 
CN CN ■r-lO O 

,-1 ,-H ^-1 1-H tH 


lOtO toio to 

Tht^ opdo 

O^00 «t^ vO 


lOtOiO to to 

OvCSlO«^ 
lOiOrJHPDPO 


J (» a 


»r> lO lO lO »0 


lOiOirjiOiO 

00»O <M Ov"0 
fO -^lO IT) VO 


lO ID to to to 

PDO^ Tt<-^ 
t^OOOOOvO 


lOlOlOtOlO 

ootocsao 

O ^ «S fScD 




s 


SI 




Orot-.O'* 
fN ^ OO On 

,— 1 *H tH T-H 


OOOOt^ vOO 


to 00 «N to OS 

lOrtrfPDtM 


Sat 

O 3 2 
J m p. 


rOOOPOOOrO 


00 PO 00 CD 00 
iO<N00»O»H 


PD OOCD OOPD 
00 "^t^-^t-. r^ 
^Ot^00 00O^ 


OOPD OOPD 00 
Ot^PDOO 
O O'-^ fN (M 




1 




^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 


OOOOO 
^OOsOX 


OOOOO 
^lO OsPDt^ 
OOt^ voo to 


OOOOO 
th »o On PD t^ 
lOrfCDCDCN 




ooooo 
^ cs cs 


CDPO'-tiOtO 


CD O^ trj '-H t^ 

voot-oooo 


0^0^0■^'H 

y^ t-t w-t 


o 

CO 


X 

e 


1t:2 


0\fO X cs t^ 


^vOO»OON 
OOvOvOOt^ 


rt<OOPDr^(>J 
t>» VOOIO to 


t^- fS t>» cs t^ 

vO-^toO-* 
■^T^PDPDtN 


2^a 


oorCoor<5« 
roXfCON'* 

•»-! th CN 


CO 00 CD 00 PO 

0>0'<-H vo cs 

POCO -^ TtiO 


OOPDWPDOO 
t-cDOOTfON 

to o vot^t-* 


PD OOPD 00 CD 
lOOvO^l^ 

OOOvOvOO 

1-1 1-H 


8 

4©= 


1 




in in u-i XT} u-i 

l^ CN t~^ CNr>. 


lOiOiOiOiO 

<>J t^ (N t- CN 

0\ « 00 t^^- 


lO to toioio 

t--. (M r>- fN t^ 

vOOtoiO-^ 


lOtOlO to to 

■^CDCD CN CN 


3 6,^ 
2^a 


CNt^ CN t^ CN 

^ tH tN 


lr5lO»OlO^O 

t^ CS t^ CN t>. 


lO to to to to 
to to O Ot^ 


lO to to to to 

l^ CS (-'• CN t>. 

l>.00 00OvO\ 


O 

o 


X 


<3J 


oofoxfow 

OOOnOnOO 


PDOOPOOOCO 
PDOOrt^CMO 
OOf^ t^ VO vO 


OOPD 00 PD 00 
O O '-• t^ CN 
VOtotO-^Tj* 


CD OOPD 00 CD 
OOPD 0\'^0 
CDPD CN CN CN 


5sa 


CN O •<-iiO O 
•»H ^ <N 


OOPO OOPO 00 
rt^OvPO00<N 
CN CNPOPO "^ 


PD OOPD OOPD 
!>. ^ VOOtO 

ThioioNOO 


OOCD OOCD 00 
ON '^ 00 CD t^ 
NOt^r^ 00 00 




X 


1" 


OOOOO 
TtiOOCNOO 
0\ OvX 00 t^ 


OOOOO 
Tj^OOCNOO 
t^ t^ \0 vo lO 


OOOOO 
-^OVDCSOO 
to to Tti TfPD 


OOOOO 
Tf OO CN 00 
PD PD CSCN-fH 




ooooo 

(NVOO""* W 


OOOOO 
(NOO-^OO 
<N CNPO POPO 


CS vO O "^ 00 
rt< -"^ to to to 


CN VOO -^00 
\0 vOt-*t^t>» 


o 


si 

s 


0) 


CN t^ fN t^ fN 

CN OOlO »-l 00 


vo vO»OiO to 


t^ PD OOPO 
"^Tt^-^roPD 


t^ CN t^ CNt^ 

o^vo<^^ONto 

<N CN CN ■^'-H 


^sa 


00 fO 00 re 00 
^ lO 00 CN lO 


po ooco oocQ 

0\ P^ *0 ON PO 
»H CN (N CN CO 


OOPD OOPD 00 
vOOcDt^O 
PD '*'*•«* to 


PD OOPD OOPD 
,j(t^ ^ Tt* 00 
to tOONOO 


' 






^ 4-> CD 

■y . Si Cot 


.1^ 


liai 


irjioioioio" 


loio'toio'io" 

»OVOJ>00On 


lo" to' to' to* to* 

O'H(NP0'«^ 

W^ »H »H »-l 


lOto'to'lOlO 

lO vOt^OOON 
,H tH «H t^ «H 



134 






escsfscNfS fMfNesTt<'T^ irjvot^ooON 



:8 















CN CS ^ 


00 00 00 00 00 
OvONOONO 


Noaovioio 
ic to 


csfo lo ^ X 


f^OOrooO 
t^ 00 OS On 

«_< ,-< ,-H ,^ 








OOOO 
oOOeNT^ 

CS P^ '-H 


Th '^ Tt Tj< Tf^ 


rJ^vOOXX 
vO »0 lO rtf rJH 


O (N rfNO X 


1640 
1720 
1800 
1880 








vOOO^fO 


§s§s§ 


O'^'^iOiO 

NO P^ fS Ttl Tt 


"1 O "^ lO '^. 


00^0 00<*5 
PO-^OONQ 










vOvoOvOvO 




lO X 'H ■rj<t^ 

CO fM C^l ^ 












<rs rvj CN (N cs 


^"^.•^.ONOs 
lOlOlOfOfO 


•^.NO^^.f^*^. 

(N(NOv^VO 


fooof^oo 

POOvOr^ 

_| 1-1 1-H ^— 1 








oooo 


00 00 00 00 00 


X fN fSNONO 


O-^XCSNO 


OOOO 
CO OvVO ■^ 






ONf^«(N 


5i;??5 


TfXXf^fO 


'^. «s "1 ^ '^. 

t^CSNO'-HlO 


00 f5 00 f5 
fSOOfO On 
^ ^ (S cs 










ooooo 


OmiOOO 


lO OicOio 


OO-^"^ 








oofooofo 

^H 1-H 


vovOvOvOO 




'^.x'^On'^. 


foxfooo 

OnOnOO 








§2°° 


CN(N<N«N(N 


CSXX"*"* 
f<5 CNCNCN«N 


OnOCNX '^ 


SS8S 

00 00 Ov On 








«N00»O^ 


00 X 00 X X 
CN CN CN CN CN 


lOiO 

OOrj^Tj?^^ 

es «N es (N cs 


lO lO »o 

t^* Tt O t^ f<5 


OOPOOOfD 
■THiOOOiN 

t^t^t^ 00 









»o »oio>o 

O'H fsjfO 
CSCS(NCS 



OOOOi 
0000( 



ooooo 

ooooo 

ooooo ooooo 



loicmiov) ir> XT) XT) XT) xTi in\nir)\rnr> 

T^u^Not^x o\0>oo»o ooooo 
cscsescscs csfOfC"^-^ lo^t^xo* 



The proceeds of the local 
tax for each of the various 
millages and valuations are 
also given for the districts 
having equalized valuation 
less than $240,000. In each 
case the sum of the local 
tax and the General Aid 
amounts to the number of 
dollars given at the head of 
the column for the millage 
levied. One reason for plac- 
ing the dollar figures at the 
top of the columns in this 
way is to facilitate the use 
of the table by local school 
directors in determining the 
local tax-rate. The direc- 
tions for this procedure will 
be given later. Another rea- 
son for this arrangement is 
that it helps to make clearer 
the nature of the plan. 

The two parts of this table 
were derived from two dif- 
ferent types of considera- 
tions. Those governing the 
part concerning valuations 
of less than $240,000 per 
teacher will be set forth 
first. 

First Part of Form I. — 
General Aid seeks to give 
aid to local school districts 
in accordance with a com- 
bination of two factors, one 
of which is the abiHty of the 



135 



district to support schools as measured by its equalized valuation 
per teacher (the fourth criterion) and the other, the effort which 
the district makes to support a school as measured by its tax-rate 
(the fifth criterion).^ 

In the case of the former factor the grants from the State are in 
inverse proportion to the ability of the district to support schools, 
i. e,, those having the least wealth receiving most and those having 
the greatest wealth receiving least. In the case of the latter factor 
each increase in tax-rate brings an increased grant from the State 
and each decrease, its corresponding diminution. In accordance 
with the first and sixth criteria of the theory of state aid proposed 
in Chapter VIII, the amount of General Aid granted by the State 
according to this plan changes with each alteration in wealth or 
tax-rate and the extent of such changes corresponds to the altera- 
tions made within and by the local districts. 

This plan satisfies the need of the State, placing districts as nearly 
upon an equality as possible in regard to local support of schools, 
so that all districts making the same effort, which means levying 
the same tax-rate, may have the same amount of money with which 
to support their schools. A moment's reflection will show, however, 
that all districts in the State cannot be included in a plan placing 
all districts upon such an equality. Take two districts, one with 
$1,000,000 taxable wealth back of each teacher, another with 
$20,000, and suppose that $2,000 represents the amount that each 
should have to support a school for each teacher employed. The 
wealthier district could raise the $2,000 by a local tax of two mills; 
the poorer district, on the other hand, would have to levy a tax of 
100 mills. In the first case the local tax is far below the normal, 
while the second case presents an impossible situation. The 
former district can properly be excluded on practical grounds from 
any system of aid which attempts to produce an equality in ability 
to support schools on the ground that it already raises sufficient 
money by itself to support a superior school with less than the 
normal tax-rate. But looking at the question from the point of 
view of the poorer district, is it not right that the State should place 
it financially on the same plane as the wealthier one? In order to 

^See page 117, 
136 



place both on an equality the State would be required to give the 
poor district for each teacher at least the difference between $2,000 
and the proceeds of a two mill tax on $20,000 or $1,960. Should 
the rich district be given a subsidy, the grant to the poor district 
would have to be increased proportionately. The granting of such 
a large proportion of State aid to districts which vote a tax of but 
two mills would practically mean the abandonment of local taxa- 
tion and thus affect indirectly the democratic government of 
schools. This would violate the fourth principle governing school 
support and should not be permitted. The sound policy would be 
to grant aid only to those local districts that had first made a rea- 
sonable effort to support schools. Furthermore, with such large 
grants as this upon so little local effort the operation of the second 
factor in the plan — the increasing and decreasing of State aid with 
increases and decreases of local tax — would have to operate upon 
such a low scale that its results would be far from satisfactory in 
promoting efficient schools. 

Thus choice must be made between two alternatives, viz. — (1) 
excluding the richer districts from the operation of the principle 
of equalization of support and preserving local taxation as the 
fundamental element of school support, or (2) securing reasonably 
close equality as regards support among all districts, but with the 
sacrifices of two of the most fundamental elements of our govern- 
ment and of American life itself — local taxation and democratic 
control. 

It is obvious that the former Hne of action is the one to follow 
since it can be pursued without injury to the richer districts. While 
it is possible and even probable that schools might be benefited in 
the beginning by the second alternative, the harmful effects upon 
society would eventually react upon the schools and work against 
the realization of one of their most fundamental aims — the preser- 
vation and development of a sound democracy. 

Standards. — It is evident, from the consideration of these facts, 
that in order to formulate the details of any plan for state sub- 
sidies based upon ability and effort, it is necessary that in the be- 
ginning certain standards be settled upon — (1) as to the cost per 
teacher of conducting the school, or Standard Cost per Teacher, (2) 

137 



as to the tax-rate that a local district should levy in order to secure 
from the State such a grant as would permit it to have suflScient 
funds from both local and state sources to meet the standard cost 
per teacher. This may be called the Standard Tax-Rate, and (3) 
as to how high in the range of equahzed valuations the plan 
should extend, which point may be called the Maximum Valuation 
per Teacher Standard. General Aid as presented in Forms I, II 
III and IV is so planned as to make it possible for all districts 
having valuations below the maximum valuation standard which 
levy the same local tax-rate, to have from both local and state 
sources the same amounts of money to spend for schools, irrespec- 
tive of what this valuation may be. 

The starting-point in the preparation of the plan presented in 
Table 45 was the Standard Cost per Teacher and the Standard Tax- 
rate. Any district levying the standard tax-rate should have, it 
was thought, sufficient funds from the State to have in its posses- 
sion from both local and state sources sufficient money to meet the 
Standard Cost per Teacher. The Maximum Equalized Valuation 
Standard was placed at that point in the scale of equalized valua- 
tion furnished in Table 29, where, in the process of equalization, the 
wealthier local districts, because of their high valuations, ceased to 
need any state money to meet the Standard Cost per Teacher after 
levying the Standard Tax-Rate. 

Such were the relationships of these three standards to each 
other as they were finally fixed by the author. But before a definite 
decision was reached various other relationships between them were 
considered. Closely interwoven with this phase of the subject is 
that of the standards themselves. In fact, these two aspects of the 
question are so closely interrelated that they cannot be separated. 
Certain possible standards that might have been adopted, most 
of which are taken from previous chapters, are given in Table 45a. 

Many tables for state aid were constructed with these different 
figures as possible standards in varying relationships to each other 
and the plans thus formulated were tested out as to their practical 
operation in various typical districts. Several interesting and 
significant decisions were reached upon the basis of this experience: 

First. Standards should be derived from data for the State as a 

138 



whole rather than from rural or city schools alone. This seems fair 
from the theoretical point of view, since the State should not dis- 
criminate between classes of districts except as the local districts 



Table 45a. — Possible Standards in Constructing the Ability and Effort 

Plan for General Aid 



Medians 

Entire State (estimates) 

Excluding N. Y. City (estimates) . 
Common Sch. Dists. (estimates). . . 
Union Free Sch. Dists. (estimates) 
Villages under Supt. (estimates) . . 
Cities 

Averages 

Entire State 

Omitting N. Y. City 

N. Y. City 

All other cities 

Villages 

Towns 



Valuation 


Tax-rate 


per teacher 


mills 


$290,000 


5.8 


169,000 


7.2 


107,000 


5.4 


107,727 


8.9 


181,666 


7.8 


183750 


8.2 


240,000 


7.2 


157,000 


8.8 


347,000 1 


6.2 



Expenses 
per teacher 



$786 (1 rm. sch.) 

1,217 

1,533 

1,540 



1,725 
1,380 
2,174 
1,770 
1,538 
1,086 



Entire State . . . 
New York City 
All other cities . 

Villages 

Towns 



Average 




expense per 


State aid 


teacher to 


per 


local 


teacher 


districts 




$1,135 


$590 


1,455 


719 


1,184 


586 


1,000 


558 


669 


417 



Percent state aid 
is of total 



34 
33 
33 
36 

38.5 



Average tax-rate upon expenses less state aid for entire State — 4.77 

^ Based on equahzation table of State Tax Commissioner for 1920 — Bronx, 
Kings, New York, Queens and Richmond Counties combined. There is a dis- 
agreement among various sources. The figures $403,000 given in the chapter 
on valuations was obtained from the assessed valuations furnished by the State 
Department of Education, multipHed by the rate of equahzation given by the 
State Tax Commission Report for 1919. The Survey is unable to determine 
what is the correct figure. 



139 



by their own actions warrant such discrimination. The testing 
out of the table also showed this to be the wisest plan. Standards 
furnished by rural schools alone did not give them sufficient aid to 
become efficient schools; while the standards furnished in the data 
for the city schools were obviously too high. 

Second. The averages are better standards than the medians. 
This grows out of the fact that the theory of distribution of state 
funds seeks to insure an equahty among all districts. Under such 
circumstances the distance of every unit from the mean accepted 
as the standard must be given its true weight. This condition is not 
fulfilled if the median is used, as is well known by students of sta- 
tistics and as was fully demonstrated in the trials with the medians 
as standards. 

Third. The maximum equalized valuation standard should be 
fixed after the other two are known. It was found that any effort 
to place this standard at any other point than that where state aid 
ceased to be needed for securing the standard cost through the 
levying of the standard local tax-rate would produce irregularities 
among the districts within the range where equality was desired. 

Fourth. Another conclusion grows out of the three just stated, 
namely, that all three standards may best be obtained from the 
same set of figures — those of the State — and that they should be 
factors or multiples of one another. 

The standards recommended for New York State and the methods 
by which they were obtained are as follows: (1) The Maximum 
Equalized Valuation per Teacher Standard — $240,000 — was ob- 
tained by dividing $12,989,433,732, the total equalized valuation of 
the State in 1919, upon which the local taxes for the support of 
schools for 1920 were based, by 54,253 (teaching positions), the num- 
ber of teachers in the schools of the State in the year 1920. This 
gives $239,425, or $240,000, the adopted standard. (2) The Standard 
Cost per Teacher — $1,725 — was obtained by dividing $93,585,462, 
the total expenses of the schools for the entire State, by the number 
of teachers. (3) The Standard Tax-rate — 7.2 mills — was obtained by 
dividing the total expenses for 1920 by the equalized valuation. 

The figures given in Table 45 approximate closely these stan- 
dards. Accompanying the seven mill tax is a total cost per teacher 

140 



of $1,680, while corresponding to the seven and one-half mill tax is 
a cost of $1,800. Any district having an equalized valuation per 
teacher of less than $240,000 may have as much money with which 
to support a school as any other district levying the same tax, inas- 
much as the differences in income from local taxes are made up by 
the State. 

Formula for First Part of Form 7. — The method of obtaining the 
amount of state aid given any local school district in this first or 
upper part of Table 45 may be expressed by the formula — 

(240 - V) M X T X $1 1 

The explanations of the terms of the formula are as follows : 

240 is the number of thousands of dollars in the Maximum 
Equalized Valuation Standard. 

V represents the number of thousands of dollars in the equalized 
valuation per teacher of the district in question. ^ 

M represents the number of mills (expressed as a whole number) 
in the equalized tax for school expenses (not including tax for capi- 
tal outlays, or new buildings, etc.) of the district in question.^ 

T represents the number of full time teachers (including all 
instruction oflBcers) in the district in question. (In Table 45 all 
calculations are for one teacher.) 

^ The formula recommended for General Aid to the Joint Committee on 
Rural Schools (see Rural School Survey of New York State, a Report to the 
Rural School Patrons, p. 248), in December, 1921— (290- V) X M X T X .626— 
was based on $290,000, the median valuation per teacher for the entire State, 5.8 
mills the median tax for the State, and $1,054, the standard cost per teacher 
in elementary schools of common school districts and union free school dis- 
tricts. This combination of standards does not approach, however, as close 
an equalization as that suggested above. 

While this formula permits the lowest valuation district to have a standard 
cost per teacher by levying a standard tax-rate, it does not do as much for the 
lower valuation districts as Form I. It is not possible for them, under this plan, 
to have as much money available with any mill tax and with the state aid 
corresponding thereto as the wealthier districts levying the same tax. For this 
reason this plan is not considered as good as Form I, which, of the four presented 
in this study, it most closely resembles. Districts having a valuation of less 
than $155,000 receive less under it than under Form I, while those having a 
greater valuation receive more. 

2 In Case V is expressed in number of dollars the Maximum Equalized Valu- 
ation Standard must be expressed as $240,000 and M as a fraction of a dollar, 
such as .007 for seven mills or .0075 for seven and a half mills. 

141 



Second Part of Form I. — It will be recalled that the Maximum 
Equalized Valuation Standard for aid to local districts under the 
first part of Form I is placed at $240,000 because that was the point 
where the necessity for state aid disappeared. Why then give any- 
thing to the districts above this standard? The answer is that it is 
good administrative policy for a State to give every district some- 
thing, even though the amounts be nominal. The amounts recom- 
mended for New York State are as follows: 

Districts having a true valuation from — 

$232,00a-$300,000 shall receive $8 for each mill levied 



300,000- 399,000 






7 " ' 






400,000- 499,000 






6 " ' 






500,000- 599,000 






5 '' ' 






600,000- 699,000 






4 u c 






700,000- 799,000 






3 " ' 






800,000- 899,000 






2 " ' 






900,000 and over 






1 ^' ' 







Two questions may properly arise: First. Why should a few 
districts below $240,000 ($232,000 and over) receive aid according 
to this plan? Rightfully, they should receive more than districts 
having a valuation of $240,000 or over; under the plan adopted for 
the first part of Form I they would receive less. The table places 
them upon the same footing as districts of $240,000 to $299,000. 

Second. Why should $8.00 be granted for each mill levied? By 
referring to Table 45 in the column for the seven and one-half mill 
tax, approximately the standard tax-rate, it will be noticed that the 
steps for each $10,000 difference in valuations is $75.00, or nearly 
$8.00 per thousand. Since state aid gradually disappears as the 
districts approach the $240,000 valuation point, this is the approxi- 
mate rate of diminution per thousand for districts levying the 
standard millage. For this reason there seemed to be some basis 
for adopting this as the initial amount. The points in the valua- 
tion scale for gradually diminishing this initial amount as the valua- 
tion increases were so fixed as to make the distribution include 
by regular steps practically all the districts in the State. 

Another consideration was that any initial amount larger than 
$8.00 for the second part of the plan would require an extension 
downward in the alteration of the grants under Part I to valuations 

142 



below $232,000. This might easily create a large group of favored 
districts and thus destroy the balance brought about by the equali- 
zation secured under Form I as formulated. 

Reductions. — It is believed that this plan fully satisfies the 
first, fourth, fifth and sixth criteria estabUshed in Chapter VIII and 
that it satisfies the third as fully as should be expected of any plan 
of General Aid. It now remains to add to the fundamental factors 
certain others which will prevent the State from giving aid to in- 
eflBcient schools and thereby satisfy the second criterion. 

1. The first point at which the State should be on its guard is in 
giving full aid to small attendance schools. The great waste that 
has come from this source has been clearly pointed out in the previ- 
ous chapters. The plan of General Aid, founded on the principle of 
fair dealing, gives Uberally to efficient rural schools and requires de- 
ductions if common school districts desire to continue a school that 
is uneconomical and inefficient. 

It is, therefore, recommended that a standard nimiber of pupils 
in average daily attendance be established for each teacher, and 
that, when the average daily attendance falls below such a standard, 
the General Aid be reduced in such proportion as the average daily 
attendance bears to a standard denominator. Those standards 
may well vary among the different types of schools. The Survey 
recommends that the Standard Average Daily Attendance required 
in one- teacher rural schools be fixed at 12 and that the standard 
denominator be fixed at 24. Thus a school having a daily attend- 
ance of seven would receive only seven twenty-fourths of the allot- 
ment which it would receive had it the full quota of 12 pupils per 
teacher in order that the best interests and welfare of the pupils 
attending may be promoted. The State Department of Education 
should have the authority to waive the rule in the case of those 
schools which in its judgment should, under the present circum- 
stances of road conditions, distance, weather conditions, etc., be 
retained as separate schools. In union free school districts and 
reorganized community districts the Standard Average Daily At- 
tendance should be placed at 20, with the same standard denomi- 
nator. In cities both should be higher. 

2. Another desirable limitation in the operation of this plan is the 

143 



placing of a maximum number of mills above which the State will 
not give aid. The maximum number of mills based upon equalized 
valuations for which state aid will be allowed in the use of this for- 
mula should be fixed at eight mills. This will enable even the 
poorest districts to have, in case any should desire, a school which 
is equally as good as those supported by many of the richer districts. 
Districts should be allowed to spend more than this, but should not 
receive state aid on the basis thereof. 

3. Poor teaching must be prevented. While the system of Gen- 
eral Aid recommended herein promotes in itself the employing of 
teachers of superior qualifications in that it offers a plan in which the 
State will assist in the payment of salaries, it is desirable, in order to 
discourage the appointment of teachers of inferior qualifications at 
high salaries, that a graduated series of deductions from the amount 
to be received from General Aid be devised so that the apportion- 
ment for each teacher of inferior qualifications in a particular posi- 
tion will be reduced by some amount, such as $100, the first time, by 
$200 the second time, and so on. As indicated in the treatment 
of the theory underlying state aid, it is necessary that the State up- 
hold minimum standards of schools in every respect; but in time 
past provisions in the law permitting the Commissioner of Education 
to withhold funds have not operated with the highest efficiency be- 
cause of the requirement that all the allotment be withheld. Prob- 
ably the best way in which a local board may be checked in its desire 
to lower the efficiency of schools is by some such series of graduated 
deductions as suggested above. 

4. In order to prevent an improper distribution of expenses among 
the various items of the budget the State Education Department 
should be authorized to withhold certain portions of the General 
Aid according to some pre-arranged plan based on proper standards, 
whenever any district spent an unusually large or unusually small 
proportion of its funds on any one item during the previous year, 
as, for instance, salaries of janitors. These standards are easily 
ascertained. Any percentage above or below the middle seventy 
percent, or any expense above or below a certain number of dollars 
per pupil or per teacher, should be subject to review and to deduction 
unless the extreme expense seems to be warranted by some unusual 

144 



conditions. Such standards as these should, of course, be revised as 
conditions change throughout the State. Probably the cost per 
unit would be a better standard, but it should be based, in part at 
least, upon standards derived from a percentage distribution of ex- 
penses throughout the entire State. Moreover, these standards 
should differ among the various classes of districts in order to be 
more closely adjusted to the needs and general welfare of the schools 
of the entire State. 

5. The State Department of Education should have also the 
authority to make deductions from General Aid in case any district 
accumulates an unnecessary excessive balance of funds at the close 
of the year. This should be done by deducting in the formula a 
number of mills in proportion to what such excessive balances rep- 
resent in terms of mills in the particular district in question. 

Form II 

Form II is the same as Form I except that it gives larger grants to 
those districts having a valuation higher than the standard equal- 
ized valuation that levy taxes higher than five mills, and spend 
more than $1320 per teacher for current expenses. The amounts 
that the various districts would receive under this Form are given 
in Table 46. This peculiar provision appHes only to those districts 
lying within the irregular portion of the table. It will be noticed 
that certain districts having valuations below $240,000 are included 
herein. This is done in order that the districts lying just below 
$240,000 may not receive smaller amounts of aid than those above 
that amount. This Form will be of benefit particularly to the 
villages and cities. 

Inasmuch as it is of prime importance that all districts below the 
average be placed upon the same footing as nearly as practicable, it 
seems only just that those districts which, under the previous Form, 
would obtain only nominal amounts,'should have some reward from 
the State for putting forth an effort above the average for the 
maintenance of good schools. It is just as important to the State 
that districts that are progressive be encouraged in their continued 
educational development as that those that are behind shall be 
brought up to the standard. 

lo 145 



u 

< 

o 



o 
Pi 

I 

> 

8 

S3 
i> a 

m « 

is 





8 




J^h-; 








O 


H 


S 


o 


^ 


^ 


P 


^ 


O 


P4 
< 


< 


> 


P 


§ 




rn 


Q 


H 


w 




^ 


K 


w 


K 


►-1 




d 






Q 


s 


< 




H 




H 




< 




H 




O} 




1^ 




O 




r/} 




c^ 




^ 




p 




O 




a 




< 








4^ 


1 




loirjioioto ioic»ou->»o io»o»o»r)io 

^cNfc-^io vot^ooovo •<-* es <n ■rf^ lo 
thoovooi^ voiO"<^(r)fO cs'^oovoo 


Q 3 2 
^ CO a 


»OiOVO»OiO 101010»0»0 lOlOlO»OlO 

Tj^foeN'^o a\oot^vo»o Tt^focs'^o 

•^ «N PO ■rt* rt<io^t^OO OvO'-HCMfO 

tH ^-H i-H ^-H 




s 




l^CNt^CNt^ CSt^fNl^CN t^CSt^CSt^-. 

Os^CNTtllO t^OOO'^fO Ttivdt^OvO 
OvOvOOt^vO lOT^-^fDCN thOOnOOOO 


O 3 g 
J CO O, 


fOOOfOOOro oppoMfOOO ro 00 fO 00 fO 

'^CN'^OnOO vOiOfOCNO Ost^OTfiro 

^CSCNfO rJHiOVOt^OO 00 0\ O i-i CN 


o 

rs 


00 j_, 
1 




ooooo ooooo ooooo 

00 O CN "^ VO OOOfN-^O OOOCNrJivO 
oooor^voio tJ* •"^ ro (M th O O Ov 00 t^ 


o :3 o 

J CO G 


OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO 

TtiCNOOOvO •"^CSOOOO rtiCNOOCO 

■<-i CN CN ro "-^lovOOt^ OOOvOO'^ 

^-H ^-H -(-H 








CSt^CSjt^CS r^CSt^CNt^ CSl^CNt^CN 

vOOOi-HfOO 00 ^ PO VO 00 i-( ro VO X ^ 
^-OOiO-^ CO r*^ (N ^ O 0(^Xt^t^ 


SG-g 

5sa 


00 PC W PC 00 PCOOrCOOPO O0PCt>-POt^ 

PC^OOVO.PO ^OOVOPO^ OOOPC'^00 

^ -^ CN'pO Tj<TjHiovOt^ l>.«OvOO 

1-1 »H 


4,^ 


1 
1 




lOlOiOlOiO lOVOtOiOtO I0i/^w^i0»0 

^t^OPCvO OsCNiOOO-* Tt^t^OPCO 
vO ID lO ■<*i PC CNCN'^OO Ov0000t>.vO 




lOiOtOlOiO ioio»/>»oio ioio»o«o»o 

PCOt^-^i-i OOiOCSOvvO PCOt^-^'H 
THrHCSPC PC^iOiOvo t^OOXOvO 

1—1 


O 
vO 

4^ 


si 

S 




l^fSt^CNt^. CNt^CSt^CN t^(Nt^CNJ>. 

CNVOOVPOVO OPCt-OTt^ t-iHTj^OO^ 
tOrhfCPCCS (N-^OOOv OOXt^NOO 


5 6.^ 


pooopcxpo oopooopcw pcoopcoopo 

POO^VOfSON 10<NX10th XTt^tHt^"^ 
»H(N<N PC^^invO V0l>-O0000v 


4^ 


X 

1 




ooooo ooooo OOOOO 
1— 1 lO 0\ PC *>• 1-H lO Ov PCf^ 1— 1 lO O* PC «>• 
Tt^PCfNC-^-^ -p-fOCNOvOO OOt-VOVOtO 

1-H T-l 1-1 i-H l-H 1— 1 T-H 


OG? 

o s o 

J CO G 


ooooo ooooo ooooo 

PCOviOi-tf^ PC On to th t>. PC 0\ »0 1-1 1>- 
iH(rs(N PCPC^tiiOiO vovot^oooo 


o 




0) 

1^:2 


CNt^fNt^CN t^<Nt^fNt^ CNt>.CNt^CN 
ONPCOOCNt^ thvOOiOON ■'^OOPCt^CN 

cs cN 1-1 1-< o oaNONooi>- t^»ovo>oio 

1— 1 1-1 1-1 rH tH t-I 


5^a 


oopcoopcoo pcoopcoopc xpcoopcoo 

CNOOPCCN'-t OiO^vOfN l^PCOO-^Ov 
T-i,-((N PCPC^Tt^iO lOvOvOt^t^ 


i 

4©= 


1 


1- 


I0ir)l0»0«/^ I0l0i0i0»0 lO»OiOlOiO 

t^CNf-CSr^ CNt^CNJ>.CS tx. CN !>. CN !>■ 

■rt-^OOOv OvXOOt^t^ VOVO'OIO'* 

1-1 1-1 1-1 1-4 


Sg^ 

O 3 g 
J CO G 


lOiOiOlOlO 10»0»01C»0 lo»O>OU0iO 

CSt^CSl>.CN f^CNt^CSl>- CSr^CNt^fN 
iHiHCN CNPCPC-^Tt^ l/^lOVOOt^ 


4^ 




0) 


t^CNt^CSt^ CNt^CNt^CN r^fNf^CNt-* 
iOi-ivOcNt^ PC00TfON>O OvOi-Ht^CN 
OOOnOnOO OOt^t^vOvO ^xTiXTi'^^ 

1-1^1-1 


3 6.^ 

5sa 


PCOOPCOOPC wpcoopcoo pcwpcoopc 

CNVOi-tioO ThOvPCOOCN t^THVOOtO 
rH 1-1 CN CSCNPCPC'^ rt^iOiOOO 


i 


OJ 

1 




ooooo ooooo ooooo 

TtOvOCNOO TfOvOCNOO rt^OOCNOO 
CvCvOOOOt^ t>-t>.vOvOiO u-jio-^^PC 


oG-g 

5sa 


CSVOO-^OO CSVOO-^OO CNVOO'^00 
iH 1-1 1-1 CSCNPCPCPC ^TtiOUOiO 


5 

00 






CNt^CSt^CN t^CSt^(Nl^ CNl^rNjf-.CS 
(NXiO^OO -^J^^t^TtO t^PCOOrc 
O0t«-f^t-»vo VOVOIOIOIO Tt<Tt<TtPCPC 


5sa 


oopcwpcx pcoopcwpc OOPCOOPCOO 

iHiOOOCNiO OvCNOOvPC VOOPCt^O 
1-1 tH tHCNCNCNPC PC-^-^-^iO 


Amount 

to be 

spent 

per 

teacher 

for 
current 
expenses 






irfioioioio" io'»o*ioio*io ii^'io'>o«o"»o" 

e^iHCNfC^ lOOt^OOCv O^CNPC-t 



146 



t^ \0 ir> Tt IfO 



00 CM >0 t^ fS) 

t^ vO -^ (VJ »H 
PO f^ ro fO ro 



u^ 00 rvj ID t'. 

fN «SCS CM cs 



es 00 



lO »0 lO 1/5 tC 

0\ 00 t^ vO lO 



(N t^ fS t^ CN 
<NfO»0 O 00 
t^ vO lO 'if fC 



OOro 00 P'J 00 
'-I O OOt^ lO 
PT) rt< rt u^ \0 



OOOO O 
00 O CN rt< vo 



OOOO o 
Tf cs O 00 vo 



ID lO fN 

Tf CD O 
« 0\ fN 



00 CN lO t^ fS lO 00 fS lot- fS 00 

CO (N O 00 I— XT) ro fN O 00 t— 00 



00 fS lO 00 fS lO 00 (N lO 00 
0\ 00 vO -* ro •^ OnOO O ■«*< 



CN 00 



t— est— CN r- 

ro vO 00 '-H fO 
\0»0 ■^ rj^ fO 



CO 00 fc 00 fo 

"OfO ^ 00 vo 



1/5 lO lO >0 1/5 

On CN »0 00 »-i 
lO »o -^fO fO 



CN lO 00 fN 

•<* CS O On 
(N (N CN ^ 



»0 00 CS lO 00 

t— lO Tti <N O 



»0>0 "* 



Or^ooOv 



ro lO ^ 00 



<*5 CS »-< 



-: loio : o i»o"i 

lO ro tN 



<N lO 00 CN 

O 00 O lO 

«N ^ T-l tH 



io«o »0 lO lO 

OOlO CN 0\ O 
O ■^ CN Cvl ^5 



lO »o 

fO o 

'^ lO 



CN t— r^ r- CN 

lO 00 fS lO On 
to rti rtifO CS 



OOfO OOfO 00 

Ot- CO o o 

OO '-I CN fS 



fO Ov 
fO ro 



0\ OS CN CS lO 
TT ^^ ^^ ^^ r^ 



lo 00 r-1 

On t- O 



lOlO 



lO lO <0 CO ?N 



OOOO o 
'-I lO 0\ CO r- 
lO ■'^fO <o cs 



O O 

-H lO 



lO 00 (N 

O « t- 



OOOO oo« 



fM CN NO NO O ■^WCSNO 
Tj<rJ<fOfOPO (Nt-<^ 



OOOO 
fOONiO— I 
OvOnO-^ 



o o o 

CO On "O 
CN <N CO 



t- ts t— rs t— 

NO '-HlOO "* 

Tfi "^CO CO CN 



^ t- '^ 

ON CO fN 

^ ^ X 



fOOOfO 00 fO 

lO O NO '-H !>• 

00 ONOvO o 



00 CO « 
«S 00 CO 

i-H .pH CN 






: CO CO : cN ; • 

00 00 CO cor- CN "O ■ 

CO CO CN ^ 



lO to lO »o to 

cs t— est- CN 

^CO CO CS CN 



lo lo to o o 

t- CN t--. -* Tfi 



o oo oo 



to to o o to 

CO CO coco (M 



otooto 

<N '-I ^ 



lOiOiO to 

t- C^It- P^ 

t— 00 00 On 


to 
t- 

ON 


to 

CN 

o 


to 

t- 

o 


to 

CN 


• 


• 












: : : 


: : : : 


CNr- CSt- 
OOCO On -^ 
COCO CN <N 




t- 
to 


CN 

1-i 


NO 


NO 

CO 


NO 

CO 


NO 

CO 


NO O 

COCO 


coco 


to 

CO 


to 

CO 


CNCNCq 
CN 


X'^.0^'^ 

^co rt< 


xcoooco 
a^T^ooco 
Noi— t- 00 


00 

t- 

00 


CO 
CN 
On 


1 


CO 

O 




; 


• 


; ; 


; ; 


• 


; 


: : : 


: : : : 


coco CS CN 




2 


s 


s 


CN 
CO 


CN 
CO 


CN 
CO 


CS CN 

COCO 


CN CN 

COCO 


X 
CN 


X 
CN 


rt^rtO 
CN CN CN 


VO(NXTf 


OOOO 
CN NO O -^ 
NO NO^>•t- 


o 
t- 


O 
CN 

00 


i 


i 


o 

ON 














: : : 


'.'.''. 


r- CNt- CN 
OnnO CN O^ 
CN es (N T-H 


t- 
to 


CN 
CN 


t- 

00 


CN 

to 


X 
CN 


X 
CN 


X 
CN 


XX 
(NCN 


XX 
CNCN 


to 

'^ 

CN 


to 

CN 


to 

»-H T-i t>r 

CN CS T-( 


to to 

rt^dt-co* 


CO 00 CO 00 
to to NO NO 


CO 


00 


CO 

to 
t- 


X 
X 

t- 


CO 

cs 

X 


; 


• 


; ; 


; ; 


• 




: : : 


: : : : 



OOOO o 
OOOO o 
OOOO o 



o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o_ o o^ o o_ 

i/T to" to' to" to 

O ^ CN CO ■* 

CN CN CN CN CN 



o oo oo 

o oo oo 

o oo oo 

lO toio lOlo 

to NO t- X On 

CN CN CN CN CN 



o oo oo 

o oo oo 

o o^o oo 

»o to lo to to 

o too too 

CO CO ''*' •'t to 



OOOO 
OOOO 

ooo_^o 
lo" to" to" to" 

OOOO 

NO t>> X On 



147 



The amounts of state aid under this modification of Form I are in 
each case one-third of the difference between the amounts in the 
headings of the respective columns in which they appear and the in- 
come from a five mill tax, five mills being approximately the average 
tax necessary to raise the amount of money coming from local 
sources for schools within the State as a whole and one-third being 
the approximate proportion of total expense borne by the State at 
the present time. The amount of aid that each district will receive 
under this Form is shown in Table 46. 

Form III 

The opposition which will naturally arise in any State, upon 
the part of the wealthier districts, because of being excluded from 
anything more than a nominal participation in the benefits of a 
plan of General Aid for schools, causes the Survey to suggest the 
adoption of this third Form as a compromise measure. In doing 
this, however, it wishes to make clear that the Form is a practical 
measure rather than an ideal one. The Survey firmly believes that 
it is a sound principle of state educational finance for wealthier dis- 
tricts to assist the poorer districts in raising their schools to such a 
plane of efficiency as will promote the best interests of the State as 
a whole. All districts should accept General Aid upon the basis of 
such a state- wide consideration of educational policy as is furnished 
in Form II. 

The scheme recommended as Form III may be conceived as con- 
sisting of two parts, the first of which is a modification of Form I 
in that all the nominal grants to districts having valuations of over 
$240,000 per teacher are omitted. The second part provides for a 
redistribution to the local districts of the income from a one mill 
state tax except in the case of those districts having a tax-rate of 
less than five mills. Compensation is made for this loss to such dis- 
tricts by granting larger amounts to districts levying a tax greater 
than five mills. The purpose of this differentiation in grants to dis- 
tricts is to permit the application of the fifth criterion established 
in the previous section as governing state aid. These deductions 
and additions are not large, however, as may be seen from Table 47, 
which shows the amounts districts would receive under the 

148 



Table 47.— Amounts of State Aid Districts of Varying Equalized 
Valuations Will Receive Under the Second Part of Form III 















Mills 


leviec 


I 










Equalized 


























valuations 
per teacher 


























3K 


4 


4H 


5 


5y2 


6 


6H 


7 


7y2 


8 


8K 


9 


$5,000 


4.70 


4.80 


4.90 


5 


5.10 


5.20 


5.30 


5.40 


5.50 


5.60 


5.70 


5.80 


15,000 


14 


14 


15 


15 


15 


16 


16 


16 


17 


17 


17 


17 


25,000 


24 


24 


25 


25 


26 


26 


27 


27 


28 


28 


29 


29 


35,000 


33 


34 


34 


35 


36 


36 


37 


38 


39 


39 


40 


41 


45,000 


42 


43 


44 


45 


46 


47 


48 


49 


50 


50 


51 


52 


55,000 


52 


53 


54 


55 


56 


57 


58 


59 


61 


62 


63 


64 


65,000 


61 


62 


64 


65 


66 


68 


69 


70 


72 


73 


74 


75 


75,000 


71 


72 


74 


75 


77 


78 


80 


81 


83 


84 


86 


87 


85,000 


80 


82 


83 


85 


87 


88 


90 


92 


94 


95 


97 


99 


95,000 


89 


91 


93 


95 


97 


99 


101 


103 


105 


106 


108 


110 


105,000 


99 


101 


103 


105 


107 


109 


111 


113 


116 


118 


120 


122 


115,000 


108 


110 


113 


115 


117 


120 


122 


124 


127 


129 


131 


133 


125,000 


118 


120 


123 


125 


128 


130 


133 


135 


138 


140 


143 


145 


135,000 


127 


130 


132 


135 


138 


140 


143 


146 


149 


151 


154 


157 


145,000 


136 


139 


142 


145 


148 


151 


154 


157 


160 


162 


165 


168 


155,000 


146 


149 


152 


155 


158 


161 


164 


167 


171 


174 


177 


180 


165,000 


155 


158 


162 


165 


168 


172 


175 


178 


182 


185 


188 


191 


175,000 


165 


168 


172 


175 


179 


182 


186 


189 


193 


196 


200 


203 


185,000 


174 


178 


181 


185 


189 


192 


196 


200 


204 


207 


211 


215 


195.000 


183 


187 


191 


195 


199 


203 


207 


211 


215 


218 


222 


226 


205,000 


193 


197 


201 


205 


209 


213 


217 


221 


226 


230 


234 


238 


215,000 


202 


206 


211 


215 


219 


224 


228 


232 


236 


241 


245 


249 


225,000 


212 


216 


221 


225 


230 


234 


239 


243 


248 


252 


257 


261 


235,000 


221 


226 


230 


235 


240 


244 


249 


254 


259 


263 


268 


273 


245,000 


230 


235 


240 


245 


250 


255 


260 


265 


270 


274 


279 


284 


255,000 


240 


245 


250 


255 


260 


265 


270 


275 


281 


286 


291 


296 


265,000 


249 


254 


260 


265 


270 


276 


281 


286 


292 


297 


302 


307 


275,000 


259 


264 


270 


275 


281 


286 


292 


297 


303 


308 


314 


319 


285,000 


268 


274 


279 


285 


291 


296 


302 


308 


314 


319 


325 


331 


295,000 


277 


283 


289 


295 


301 


307 


313 


319 


325 


330 


336 


342 


305,000 


287 


293 


299 


305 


311 


317 


323 


329 


336 


342 


348 


354 


355,000 


334 


341 


348 


355 


362 


369 


376 


383 


391 


398 


405 


412 


405,000 


381 


389 


397 


405 


413 


421 


429 


437 


446 


454 


462 


470 


455,000 


428 


437 


446 


455 


464 


473 


482 


491 


501 


510 


519 


528 


505.000 


475 


485 


495 


505 


515 


525 


535 


545 


556 


566 


576 


586 


605,000 


569 


581 


593 


605 


617 


629 


641 


653 


666 


678 


690 


702 


705,000 


663 


677 


691 


705 


719 


733 


747 


761 


776 


790 


804 


818 


805,000 


757 


773 


789 


805 


821 


837 


853 


869 


886 


902 


918 


934 


905.000 


851 


867 


887 


905 


923 


941 


959 


977 


996 


1,014 


1,032 


1,050 



second part of the Form. The amounts that districts would re- 
ceive under the two parts combined are shown in Table 48. The 
effect of this is to add to the aid given each district in Form I 
slightly varying proportions of a one mill tax, except in the case of 
districts with valuations over $240,000. In the latter group the 
state aid given in Form I is not added to the proportion of the one 

149 



O-^ 



a 



o X C 



lOvOOvOf- t^OOOOOOOv OsOOO*H »HCNfSfSfO r^-^-^-'^ 
rfiOOt^OO OvO^«NfO rfOr^WOv O'-ncNfOrfi iOvOt>.00 
Tj^rtrt^^rJ^ r^ioiC»0>0 iOiO>niOiO 00^000 00^0^ 






lOVOvOvOr^ j^OOOOOOOn CvOOO'-' ^CNfNfN*^ fOrt^Tt^rfiD u^vOO^Ot^ t^Ov^f^iO OvfOt^^ 
^vO^O-H vO^O'>-iO T-Ht^CSt^tS t^fSt^«St^ fNt^fNt^iO vOt^OOOvO ^vOCNt^fS (NfOf^T^ 
rffOfOCSfS ^^OOa< ONOOOOt^r* \OVO«0»0^ ■^COfC«NCS «NCN(NfSfO fOrO'^'^iO vOt^OOOv 






coooo 00000 00000 00000 0000 

r<i o^in w-it^ coOv»0^t>. fOON'O'THt-* roO>>0'-it-* coO\iO»-i 
4©^ T-i(N(NrOfOrt<iOiOVOOt^OOOOOvaNO^'-*CNCSCOTt< 






UOIOVOVOO vOVOt^l^l^ t^t~-.000000 OOOOOvOvOv a>OvOO 
(N«^Tt<ir5»o r^ooOvO'H esfO'^iovO ^^ooo^O»-H csfOioO 



fO f*) f) f) fO fj f) f) ^ TT 






41?^ 



4> 



r^CNOOfCOO rooOTfiOsTt* Ov'^OioO lOO^O'^O ^-ivOfNt^O OO^^'H ^cnpot^io t^O^'^ro 
Ov'OOO'-i t^CNWcOOv rt^OO^t^ CNOOfOOvrff 0»0'<-hvO»0 'Ot^OOO^O ^vO-HVOr-i TH^fNfN 
CNCSCN'.-i'.-H OOOnOnOO XOOt^t^O vOiOiOTj^Tt* rfirOfOCNCN CNCSC^CNfO rorO'^^iO vOt^OOOv 



o O. ir! 
O 3 g 



oofOoof*5oo pooofooofo oopooo«r>oo rooofooof*^ oofOWf*^ 

CNOO^OOvTf OiO'^OfS l>.rO00ThO\ ioO'OtHI-* CNCOfCOs 
4^ THTHCNrr)fO'*'^iOii^vO'Ot^t^COO\0\00^»-i(NeN 



>0^ 



TO I (» 
O <u OJ 

H a 



lOli^lOiOiO LO«OtO»OiO I0t0i0»0»0 irjlOlOirjiO lOiO«OiO 

0'-H<N<^'^ iOvot-«00CN O'-HfNfO'* IT) sOt^OO Oy O'-iCNfO 
CSrSCNCSCN (MCvlPvlCNCN cr^ rO fr^ ^ m CDfOPOfOfO '^rt^Tt^'rt* 






00000 00000 00000 00 

X-«*OOtsoo-^OOcswrt<0'OesoOTfi__,._, .__. ._ .__ _ .__ 

WtH^^hOO a\OvO\0000 t>-t^t^vOO l/^lOlOTj<Tti rorOfOCNCS CNC^CSCSCN to ^ -ri* rii IT) vOt^OOON 



00 oooo»o loioioioio »oirjio»nio lou^io^o 

vOCN OOrt^OO'^ lOOt^XCv OiOOiCO OOOO 



c^ A f 

3ga 



lOirjirjiOiO ioiO>0»0>0 io»/)U0»OiO toio»OiO»0 in ir)ir)in 

(Nt^CSt^fM t^CSt^CNt^ CNt^CSt^CN t^CNt>.CSl^ fNt^CSf- 

4©= ^ ^ fs^ (vj ro rO rt TJH 10 100 ^t^ t^ 00 00 Ov Ov O O^ ^ 



a 



13 , 


^ 


og 


c 


(ij 


a 



vo VO vO to >0 »0 »0 10 ■<* ■rt< Tt •'^ rti ro <r) vo <r) «r» fN fS tS <N CN t-H 

OOOvO'^(NfOrt<iOvOr^OOONO'-HfNf<5'<^»r5vOl^OOOvOTH • • • 

P. R. '^. '^^ '^. ^. '^. '"I ^. '^^ ^. ^^ '^. *^. ^. ^. "^^ ^. "^^ ^. ^. ^. ^. ^. 

^^ "^ "^ 

fCWf*5t^fN t^fSt^^vO ^-i\0'<-HiOO OOOtOOv"^ Cv^J^OvfOO OOOOvOv OvXl~»vOw^ r^'^Ovt^ 
vOCNOviOlN OOiO'^OO'* ^t>-.TtiOt^ PDOvOCNOv VOCNOOIO-* iO"OI>-t^00 0\rt*0\TtiOv O^OsWOO 
OOO^a^O^ OOOOOOt^t^ t^v000»0 iOiOrt<rt<rC fCfOCS«S<N CNCSCSfNCN CNrOCO'*'^ loOt^W 






0:30 
J CO a 



rooOrcoOPO OOCOOO<^00 rooOfCOOfO OOfOXPOOO fOOOf^OO 
CSvO^u^O rtHOvPDWfS t^THOOiO O -^ CO fO t^ CNVO--HIO 

4^ rH ^ <N (N es <ri po •^ -^ >o 10 o o vo t~» t>» 00 00 ov a* O O 



-^r-i 






lOrjHTfTj^fO r<^CNfS(N»-i thOOOOv OvOOOCOOt^ r^vOO^O 
vOt^OOOvO '-HCNPCTt^iO vOt^WOvOs O'HfNPTi'iti iOOt>»00 

aaaao ooooo ooooo ^<rH^»H-^ ^^^^ 






iOrJ<Tf<Tj<«r5 rr)«NCN(N^ •^OOOO* OvOOOOOOt^ I^s0v0^»0 lO'^'^Thf*^ fO'-nOst^iO ^^>.f<>0^ 
1^^-iOOiCfN OsvOfCOt^ Tfi'^OOiC^ 00i0«N0\O fOOt^'^fO rt^iOvOt^W Ov-^OOfCW OOt^l^^ 
OnOvOOXOO r^t^t>-t~-.vO vOOiOiOiO Tj^rJ^rJ^ro^O POPOfSCNfN «NP^C^1CSCN CNPOPOTfirJ* lOVOt^OO 






ooooo ooooo ooooo OOOOO 0000 

(nOO'^oo cnvoO'<^« (noO-^oo cnvoO"*oo «noO'<* 

4^ ^^tH r^ C^^tTifT) -rH rt XT) in in voot^t^t^ 00«O*O\ 

lO-'i^'^fOfS CN»H^OOv OsOOOOt^VO VOlO»OrJ<fO <r>fNCN»H 

■«*iOOt^X 0\O»-ifNCN fOrt^irj^Oi^ 00C\O'-iCN rCr^iONO 

oowwoooo ooo\avO\o\ avONO\avav ovovooo oooo 

^^5= ' _: _: _: _r _: * 



a 
6 



rt 



<u 



lOO-'tOO POt^fSOO tOOv'<^00O OOsO\Xr^ t^r*<^00iO Ov^Dt^'-' 

Tt<CNOvO ■<*'.-iavVOTt< TH00vO<^fO rl^rtiOOt^. OOPCOOCNt^ VOVOIOIO 

<NCN(NrS<Nr<l?N<NCNCNfr)fO'*'<*»O^l^00 



0) 



f^or^iorvi Oni^-^cnOv r^Tt<CNOvO ■<*'.-iavvOTt< thoo 
OOXt^t^t^ OOOOiO in inin r)* Tt* Tt*TtrcrCfO f^<N 
4^ 



O 3 O 
J en G 



oo<noopr>oo (rjoofcoo^o oofooof^oo fooofox^o wpoxfo 
^looocsio OvCN^oovfo 'OOf'it^o ■'^it^^'^oo T-iiA)oofs 
4^ »H»-i^escNCNfO<r)Th'<*T*<ioio»o'0'00«^t^t~*oo 



c« >> 

Co 



1 





(V 

u 




-M 




rt 


rt 


(V 


3 


3 


-M 


O* 


5> 


>-• 


U 


a 



ooooo ooooo 0000 

88888888i8§8§§ 



- - > ^ » » - ^ . ^ ^ ► . . . » « ^ ^ « ^ - . - . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ 

loi^ioirjio lo^otoiojo io»oioi/^»o in ^imnin in inimnin in ininin^ ininininininininin 

4^»-HCNf<5T}< lO*Ot^00Ov O-^CNfO"^ iO"Ot^WO> O'rHCNfO'^ lOOt^OOOv 0>00«00 OOOO 
^^r-(»-(T-l ^tHT-(^»-( CNtNCNCNCN CNCNCNCNCN fOfO'^'^'O vOt^XO* 



o 000 

^^88 



150 



d 
1 


Total 

ex- 
pense 


^ ^ ^ (>^ cs 


Tj<iOt^ONO CNPOi/^t^OO 0^f*5iOO 
CNro-^iOt^ OOOnO'^CN rt<iONOt-.00 
CNCNCNCNCN CNCNfOfO^O fOCOfOfOfO 


00 ON'^po • 

On O fS fr> • 






CN fN CS (N CN 


(NCNCNCNCN CNCNCNCNCN CNCNCNCNCN 


CN CN<MCN 




■.-1 CN rt< \0 !>■ 

■rH O ON 00 CC 

CN fS ■p-TtH ^^ 


OnO<N-<^iO t^OOOfSro lONOOOO'-i 
CNlOt^ON-H fOlOCOOCN '^NOOO'^fO 


rO ^NOOO Ti^ 
lO t>-ON^00 
to -"^ CO CO CS 


NOt^ON^CN tJ^CNOXnO CNXTtiO 
OnO»-icO"^ lO'^r^.CNX O-HCOiO 
CNfOrOfCrO co-^'^toiO i>.xavO^ 






ioioio»r;io ioiotc»o»o loioioioio 

ONOOt^NOiO •^rOCN'^O CNOOt^NOtC 
Tfi lO NO t^ 00 On O '-J_CN <^_ fO ■^"^^'O t~*. 


lO to to to • 

rt^ ro CN ^ • 

X OsO-^ 




Local 
sup- 
port 


Tt^fO CN ■-< O 














■^lO O 00 Cv 

ooooo 


co-^Ot^W O'-'fOTfiiO l^OOO^CN 

O'^CNfO-'* vOt^OOOvO •rHCNTt'lONO 
^^^^^ ^^^^CS CNCNCNCNCN 


-^ lOt^ X • 
t^ XOnO • 
CN CN CN fO 




S 


Total 

ex- 
pense 






rvl CN ts CS CN 


CNCNCNCNCN CNCNCNCNCN CNCNCNCNCN 


fS CS CN CN 




rO OVO (N 00 
O CN LO 00 O 

CN y^ T^ T-T ^'' 


lO-HOO-^O x>.rOOOCN CviOCOOO"^ 
fONOOO'^rfi vOO^CNTt't^ OvfStot^O 
vO^ lO^ '^."*,^^ ^. '"l^^'-L'^ « 00 t^ NO NO 


fo lOX 'pHr* 
lO rococo CN 


Y^CNTj^tONO XlOCNONNO O-^XCN 
OnO^CNCO '^ONO'-Ht^ OnO'^co 
CNCOfOCOcO fO'^'^iOtO OXOnO 




rO 00 fO oo<r> 
tJ< (N ^ ONOO 


OOfOXfDW <^00<riOO<n OOfCOOrOCO 

\OtorocNO ONJ>-NOTtHfO T-HOOOt^lO 

■<tiONOt-00 ooOnO'-icn rO'^-'^iiONO 


fO XfOX • 
r^ CN ^ ON • 




Local 
sup- 
port 






^^^ ^ ^^^^ 


^^^^ 






Ot^00C>O 
Ov On OS ON ON 


CNfO-^lONO OOOnOt-^CN -^lONOt^OO 
OOOnO-^CN fO-^Ot^OO OvO^CNro 
OnOnOOO ooooo 0'^'<-|'^'-i 


o •^ fs fr> • 

to NO t^ X • 

,— 1 tH T-H ^— 1 




1 


Total 

ex- 
pense 






r T ? ' r 




CN CN CN CN 


4*§= 




(V 

5" 


vOt^ 00 On O 
00^00^l>-_<5NO__ 


CNfO-^lONO OOOvO'^CN rflONOt^OO 
■^r^OrONO OnCNnoOncn looo^-^t^ 
iO_ "^^ "^.f^^f^. '^^ '^^'^^'^ ^ 00 t^ t^ NO lO 


^ rt<t^ Ot^ 
lO -^CO fO CN 


vOt^XOvO (NXTt^ONO XO(NTf 

xono-thco Tt^ovto-HNO t^a^O'^ 

CNCNfOCOfO rOfO'^tOiO OJ-OnO^ 




OOOOO 
Tj^rsioooo 

^ CN CN fC 


ooooo OOOOO ooooo 

rtiroOoONO TfcNOoONO -"^CNOOONO 

■^ U-3 VO NO l^ X ON 0_^0^»H CN f^^'* "^,10 


OOOO • 
■^ CN O X • 
vq r-XX 




Local 
sup- 
port 














NOt^OOOvO 
O T-H CN fOiO 

OOWOOOOOO 


'-HCNfC'^iO Ot^OOONO »HCNfOrt*iO 
NOt^ooOvO THCNfO-^NO r^oOONO'^ 
OOOOOOOOOn OsOnO\OnOn OsOvOvOO 


NO nOXOn • 




X 


Total 

ex- 
pense 






r T T T r 




(N CN<NCN 


^ 






00 rfO NO CN 

OO^t^-rH 


oo-^Onocn OO-^OnOCN OOtJ^OnOCN 
■^OOCNIOOn CNNOOcOt^ O'=t*00»-iiO 
"^fOfOCN^ ^OOOnX OOt^'ONOiO 


X fOONOO 

X CNNOC^t-. 
Tt rJ^CO CN CN 


^CNfO^lO NO^NO-^NO NONOONO 

XONO'-tCN coOn-'^OiO Ot^XO^ 
CNCNfOfOfO fOcO'^iOtO vOt^XON 


^ ^^^ 






OOfOOOfOOO 
fO •^ X NOrO 

4#tHt.^CNCO 


fOOOfOOOfO OOfOOOfOOO f^OOrOOOfO 
^OONOrO^ OONOfO^OO OfO'^OONO 

■^ rt U-> NO !>• t^ 00 ON O^O^ ■rH CN fO fO '^ 


X fOXfO • 
CO ^X O • 




Local 
sup- 
port 












^ ^ llOOl^OOCN 


ONO'-<CNro rO-^i^NOt-- X-OOOnO^ 
fO»ONOr^« OnO'^cncO t^ionOOOOn 
t^l>.t^r^t^ t-.0CO0O00O 00X000000 


•^ CNCO "^ • 
O '-< CN CO • 

Ov 0\ On On 




-4-> 




TotE 
ex- 
pens 


VO NO t^ t-* t^ 




^ 




^ ^ ^ ^ 




o T-i CN «r> ■^ 

lO ONfO t-- ■'H 


TfllONOt^OO 00a\OrHCN CNfO-'^lONO 
u-)ONrOr>.T-i lOONTfOOCN vOO-^OOCN 
fO(NCN^'<-' OOnOvWX t^t^NOuoiO 


NO t^XOMO 
NO O-^XNO 
Tti ■* CO CN CN 


lOOt^XON ONCOt^'— iiO fO»-iONt^ 
t^XOvO-^ CSXcOOntJh lONONOt^ 
CNCNCNCOCO fOCO'^'^to <Ot^XON 


€<5= 








LOiOiDiOiO lOiOiOiOiO lOiOiOiOiO 

OOiOCNOnnO fOOt^-^'-H OOiOCNOnnO 
fC-^iOu-jvO t^OOOOONO^O^^ '^^^>^.'^> 


lO »oio to • 

CO Ot^Tt< . 




Local 
sup- 
port 














NOt^ 00 0\0 
lO lO lO lO O 


ooOvOO'-^ '-HCNoOPn'* rtiu^vONOr^ 

^(NThlONO t-OOONO'^ CNfOTt^lONO 

nOOnonOnO NONONOt^t^ t^t^t^t^r^ 


t^ X ON On • 
t^ X 0\0 • 
t^ t» t>- X 




Total 

ex- 
pense 












4^ 




^ ^^^ 


SI 


CN 00 -* ONirj 

CO t^ CN NO '^ 


ONO(Nr^fO XTt^Oio-pH vo<N00fOO\ 

NOOlOOv-^ OOfOOOCNt^ -HNOOlOOv 

CN fN^'-1.0_^0_^ OnOnOOXi>> t^NO'OiO''* 


'* ONO-r^O 
'^ O^coXNO 
"* COCOCNCN 


O'^CNCNCO rONOONCNtO ■pHt>-COa 
t^XONO-^ (Mf-CNXrO rtHTj^ioto 
CNCNCNfOfO cOfO^-^uO Ot^XON 




CO OOfC 00 fO 
COOvNOtNON 
^ -^CNP^ 


OOfOOOfOOO fOOOfCOOfO OOfDOOf^OO 
IDCNOOUTi-l OO'^'rHt^Tf Ot^fOONO 
CO Tt* Tt lO O NO t- 00 00 On O O -t<^.<^. 


CO XCOX • 
CO 0\ NO CN • 
f0^fO_^-^_tO^ 




Local 
sup- 
port 










i >> 
1 


Equalized 
valuations 
per teacher 


lO lO lO to »o 

^-^CNPOTfi 


lONOt^ooov OrHCNco-^ ioNOt^ooa\ 


205,000 
215,000 
225,000 
235,000 
245,000 


lo' irj" to" lo' lo lo lo' to' »o' to' lo* «o to' ir; 

loot^xov oiooioo oooo 

CNCNCNCNCN COCO'^'^IO vOt^XON 



151 



mill tax inasmuch as the principle which caused their inclusion in 
Form I is satisfied in the second part of Form III. 

Form IV 

Form IV is suggested as an alternative to Form III to be used 
in case there is sufficient state money available. It is similar to 
Form III except that the first part of it is based upon Form II 
rather than upon Form I. In other words, the amounts given in 
Table 46 are used in the addition instead of the amounts given in 
Table 45. In computing aid under this Form the nominal amounts 
in the lower portion thereof should be omitted in the same way as 
was done in the computation of the amounts for Form III. 

This is an improvement upon Form III in that it recognizes the 
efforts of high valuationed districts to furnish superior educational 
facilities for their children. The advantages claimed for Form II 
in this respect apply also to Form IV. The Survey has not worked 
out a table for this Form because of the lack of space, but it would 
be exactly like Table 47 except in that portion corresponding to the 
middle block of Table 46. 

The Use oe These Tables 

In order to show how these tables, which have been prepared in 
accordance with the formula, should be used, let it be assumed 
that a district board of education wishes to prepare its budget for 
the following year and that it desires to know the tax-rate which 
should be levied upon the property within the district in order to 
support its schools. The procedure that such a board should follow 
would be similar to this: 

1. Fix upon the amount of the total expenses which would be 
necessary to maintain the schools for the coming year. In doing 
this, exclude all items that come under the head of capital outlays, 
such as, new buildings and equipment. This is necessary inasmuch 
as General Aid applies to expenses only. (There are, however, 
certain items of Special Aid that apply to capital outlays as are 
indicated in the following chapter.) 

2. Next, determine the amount that will be received by the dis- 

152 



trict for such various forms of Special Aid as would apply to ex- 
pense items, namely, for special teachers of physical training and 
vocational education, for books and apparatus, for high school 
teachers, for transportation, for superior teachers in rural schools 
and for supervisors. 

3. Subtract from the total estimated expenses under (1) the total 
of the amount of Special Aid under (2). 

4. Determine the number of teachers, principals, supervisors and 
superintendents that will be employed during the coming year, ex- 
cluding those special teachers for which state aid is given, such as 
teachers of physical training, agriculture and household arts. 

5. Divide the difference obtained in (3) by the number of teach- 
ers obtained in (4). This gives the total expenses per teacher to 
which General Aid applies. 

6. Ascertain the equalized valuation for the entire district by di- 
viding the assessed valuation by the rate of equalization fixed by 
the State Tax Commission. This amount divided by the number 
of teachers to be employed the following year will give the Equalized 
Valuation per Teacher. 

7. If aid is granted under Form I or Form II the next step would 
be to take either Table 45 or Table 46 and find on the first line 
thereof the nearest amount corresponding to the expenses per 
teacher obtained under (5). The tax-rate immediately beneath 
will show the approximate number of mills that will have to be 
levied. Glancing down the column beneath these figures to the 
spaces opposite the Equalized Valuation per Teacher obtained in (6) 
will be found both the amount of state aid that will be received per 
teacher from the State, and also the amount to be raised by local 
taxation for each teacher. 

8. The total amount to be raised by local tax and the total 
amoimt of state aid to be received can be found by multiplying the 
figures in the spaces indicated in (7) by the number of teachers to 
be employed. 

9. The actual number of mills to be levied may be found by di- 
viding the equalized tax-rate by the equalized rate of assessment as 
given by the State Tax Commission. 

10. In case Form III is used (7) will not be followed. Instead it 

153 



will be necessary in using Table 48 to first find the line in the left 
hand column containing the nearest equalized valuation per teacher 
to that obtained under (6). Then follow this line across the page to 
the right until the amount nearest to the expense per teacher ob- 
tained in (5) is found in one of the columns designated "Total Ex- 
pense/' the right hand column in each subdivision. The tax-rate 
given in the heading of this subdivision will be the equalized tax- 
rate that must be levied. The amount of state aid and the amount 
to be raised by local tax in the entire district maybe found, as in (8), 
by multiplying the corresponding figures in the two columns to the 
left in the same subdivision by the number of teachers to be em- 
ployed the following year. The actual tax-rate may be found by 
following the direction given under (9). 

Comments on Forms. — It is important to point out that the 
State Department in determining the amount of General Aid any 
district would receive according to these Forms should use the data 
regarding the valuations and tax-rates for the current year and not 
for the year preceding. General Aid is to complement local effort 
each successive year. If data for the previous year are used both 
state aid and tax-rates will go up and down alternately. A high tax- 
rate the previous year will bring a high amount of General Aid the 
present year, which will cause a low tax-rate to be levied the present 
year, to be followed in the subsequent year by a small state grant 
and a high tax-rate. 

In case the boards of the local school districts will not under 
present practice have full information at hand regarding the 
equalized valuations prescribed by the State Tax Commission at 
the time of fixing the local tax-rates, the Survey recommends that 
the State Tax Commission be required by law to furnish such 
equalization rates to local school boards by a specified date, which 
rate shall be used solely for the administration of the educational 
finances of the State in the levying of local taxes and in the dis- 
tribution of State subsidies to schools. 

Another point to bear in mind is that this aid is to be granted on 
the basis of current expenses only and is not influenced by money 
paid out for new buildings, equipment, supplies, etc.; aid given for 
such purposes is discussed in the following chapter on Special Aid. 

154 



Finally, the reductions outlined under Form I (page 143) are to 
apply in the case of Forms II, III, and IV. 

Formula for Determining the Equalized Tax-Rate 

The equalized tax-rate or millage may be ascertained also by 
use of the following formula: 

T.E.- Special Aid 

T 
M = 

$240,000 

M equals number of equalized mills or tax-rate; T.E. equals esti- 
mate of total expenses; Special Aid, total of all forms of special aid 
for expenses; and T, number of teachers. 

Determination oe Number of Teachers on Basis of Number 

OF Pupils 

Instead of actually counting the number of teachers in the scheme 
recommended above, it would be possible to determine the number 
of teachers by dividing the number of pupils in the district by the 
number of pupils established as the standard unit for a class. In 
this event it would be better to use the number in average daily 
attendance, since this would have the effect of promoting more regu- 
lar attendance. Aggregate attendance or total number of days at- 
tended during the year favors longer terms, but increased returns 
from the State for larger expenditures are already secured under the 
other elements of the proposed plan. Different units of average daily 
attendance per teacher should be fixed for rural and urban districts, 
likewise for elementary and high schools and for special classes. Ad- 
ditional teachers should be allowed for teaching special subjects and 
the units in this case should be larger than for regular teachers. The 
California plan embodying most of these features is probably the 
best of this kind. 

The Survey has not incorporated this feature into its recommen- 
dations because it would complicate the plan considerably, and be- 
cause it would introduce uniformity to such an extent that it would 
take away certain freedom of action from the local board. Since 
New York now uses the actual number of teaching positions, it 

155 



would seem best at least during the first years of the operation of 
the proposed plan to retain the same basis. In its present form the 
plan has checks against low attendance per teacher and these might 
prove sufficient. 

Expediency a Sueficient Warrant for Adoption of Form IV 
IN New York at the Present Time. — In this chapter there have 
been presented four alternative Forms for General Aid. The first 
two comply with the criteria in the preceding chapter and, therefore, 
meet all the essential demands that can properly be required of a 
system of state support. Forms III and IV incorporate a system 
of state aid which can be recognized only on the ground of practical 
expediency. It distributes back to the local communities approxi- 
mately the amounts of money that would be raised in each of them 
by a one mill tax. The fact that a number of cities have reached 
their legal limits of taxation and have been compelled to seek larger 
appropriations from the State in order to increase properly the 
salaries of their teachers seems sufficient proof to incorporate this 
additional element into a system of state aid on the grounds of ex- 
pediency. It is important, however, that these two different ele- 
ments in Forms I and II and in Forms III and IV be recognized 
and that they be kept separate in the formulation of future plans for 
General Aid. 

The practicabiUty of all these Forms depends, however, to a con- 
siderable degree upon the amount of money that each of them would 
require. In the last chapter of the Survey estimates of these 
amounts are given. In the next chapter the plan recommended 
for Special Aid which should supplement the system of General 
Aid, will be described. 



156 



CHAPTER XI 
SPECIAL AID 

SPECIAL Aid is distinguished from General Aid: In that (1) 
it is granted for specific purposes, whereas general aid covers 
a wide range of items, and (2) its purpose is to reward local 
districts for undertaking extensions or for performing some meri- 
torious thing that the average district does not have the desire or 
the courage to undertake. Thus such districts may be led to enter 
upon a new project with the knowledge that they will obtain a 
particular reward for so doing. 

The forms of special aid now in existence in New York to which 
the Survey gave attention will be considered: 

1 AND 2. The Physical Training and Vocational Teacher 
Quotas. — The operation of these quotas has not been studied in- 
tensively. They satisfy in principle the third criterion, page 118. 
Since equalization of the educational burden is largely secured 
through a revised form of General Aid, it is recommended that 
these quotas be retained in their present form. 

3. Books and Apparatus Quotas. — The form of state support 
second in importance to the rural schools is the books and apparatus 
quota, in which case the State pays an amount equal to that raised in 
the districts. The principle back of this form of grant is to be 
commended in that it stimulates local districts to do their best. Its 
weakness lies in the fact that it takes no account of the varying 
capacity of districts to raise money for these purposes. However, 
since the amounts of money required are not large, this objection 
is not of great force. Its present form should be retained, but a 
larger appropriation, amounting to at least $250,000 per year, should 
be granted in order to meet the demands upon it. At present, un- 
fortunately, full returns cannot be allowed because of Umited funds. 

4. Academic Quotas. — The academic quotas granted to high 
schools have in the past served as a reward for the establishment of 

157 



new departments or extension of old departments in local schools 
(Criterion No. 3). They might well serve that purpose still in 
small villages where people hesitate to estabhsh high schools, but 
the value of this form of state aid in cities and larger villages has 
passed. The fact that the grant has been in the same amount 
irrespective of the ability of the districts to pay it or of the amount 
of money that they are putting into high schools has acted as a lim- 
itation upon its highest efficiency. It is recommended that this 
form of state aid be dropped and that instead there be granted to 
union free school and common school districts aid for high schools 
in proportion to the number of teachers employed and as supple- 
mentary to the more fundamental form of state aid which takes into 
account true valuation and amount of money spent as will be out- 
lined below. 

5. High School Tuition Quotas. — The $50 per year paid by 
the State for tuition in high schools for non-resident students has no 
place in a rational system of school support, although it is intended 
to achieve a worthy aim and doubtless has been of great benefit 
to a large number, but by no means to all the young people of the 
State residing in rural districts. In its place it is recommended 
that every child residing in a district not having a high school, 
who has satisfactorily completed the elementary schools, shall be 
given the right to attend any standard high school in the State 
that he chooses, within certain reasonable limitations. His tuition 
should be paid by his local district, which should include the charge 
as part of its other expenses. The State should then reimburse it 
proportionately to its true valuation per teacher and its tax-rate 
under General Aid. The tuition-rate charged by a high school 
should be as large as the cost per pupil for the previous year, 
determined in accordance with the rules of the State Depart- 
ment. 

The following method for estimating the cost per pupil is sug- 
gested: Add to the total expenses of the high school a reasonable 
share for deterioration of plant and equipment. Subtract the ap- 
portioned amount of General Aid and the specific amounts of 
Special Aid coming to the high school from the State. Divide this 
amount by the average daily attendance. 

158 



New Forms or Special Aid 

1. For High Schools. — Because of the additional cost of high 
schools over and above those for elementary schools and especially 
because of the fact that there is a great scarcity of high schools in 
the rural regions of New York State, it is recommended, in order to 
encourage the establishment and the extension of such schools in 
the common and union free and academic districts, that $200 be 
granted by the State to every district for each teacher appointed 
either in a newly established high school or for each teacher added 
to a present high school. This aid is to apply to junior high schools 
in the same way as it appHes to senior high schools, provided the 
teacher for whom the aid is granted, possesses the standard qualifi- 
cations established by the Board of Regents, requiring graduation 
from college and professional preparation for teaching. The period 
for which such aid is granted should be limited to 20 years. 

It should be remembered in this connection that any increase in 
the number of teachers without a change in the true valuation 
operates to lower the equalized valuation per teacher and thus to 
increase the amount of aid received from the State, and likewise any 
increase in the tax-rate levied to maintain a high school receives a 
correspondingly increased aid. This Special Aid is given in addi- 
tion to General Aid in order to offer still greater inducements to the 
people in the rural communities to secure the best educational op- 
portunities for their children. Experience has proved that people 
in rural communities are less inclined to provide the best educa- 
tional facilities than people in the cities so that these forms of 
Special Aid are all the more necessary to secure the best interests 
of the State as a whole. 

2. Aid Should be Granted for Erection of School Houses 
AND Teacherages UPON THE FOLLOWING Basis: Districts having a 
valuation per teacher of 

Less than $50,000 30 percent of cost of building and equipment 

50,000-$99,000 25 

100,000-149,000 20 

150,000-199,000 15 

200,000-249,000 10 

250,000-299,000 5 

300,000 and over 

159 











( u 










I u 










i C( 










( (I 










( (I 










i u 



This aid should be subject in each case to the approval of the 
State Department of Education, both from the point of view of the 
nature of the site and the plans of the building, and also from the 
point of view of whether the erection of such a building in such a 
place is best adapted to promoting the best educational advantages 
for the children of the entire community district in which the build- 
ing is to be located. It is not intended that this state aid should be 
given to assist in the erection of buildings that satisfy needs of 
small groups of children, unless this is unavoidable. The State 
should not aid, under any circumstances, any measure which is not 
calculated to further the best interests of the State as a whole. 
Local preferences are to be considered only in so far as they affect 
the State's best interests. 

3. Improvement of Buildings. — A similar form of aid should be 
granted to communities for the making of major improvements to 
buildings, such as could be considered capital outlays within the 
rules of the State Department of Education, the amounts to be in 
accordance with the plan proposed above. 

4. Aid for Purchase of Trucks and Wagons. — ^This aid is 
recommended in the belief that first class equipment in this partic- 
ular not only promotes the highest welfare of the school, but it is in 
the end the most economical. Trucks and wagons are just as im- 
portant as a school building or a teacher in a well-organized com- 
munity school system. Experience has shown that rural people 
are not favorably disposed to adopt measures in this particular of 
their own volition. It is believed that this feature is of such im- 
portance to the welfare of the State as a whole that special aid 
should be granted for this purpose in accordance with the plan out- 
lined for schoolhouses in paragraph 2 above. 

It is to be noted that this form of aid as well as the two preceding 
are for capital outlays rather than for expenses. Without this aid 
the entire burden of the proper extension and equipment of the 
school plant falls upon local districts. This should not happen since 
many of them are handicapped by such low valuations of property 
that they cannot afford to furnish the kind of equipment which 
makes possible the proper educational opportunities for every child. 

Aid is granted in this form rather than in specific amounts because 

i6o 



of the importance of obtaining standards that are adapted to the 
varying conditions under which it should be carried on and because 
with such large items of expense the amount that it costs is the best 
standard. The plan here proposed also makes possible the adapta- 
tion of the amounts to the ability of the district to pay, the advan- 
tages of which have been shown in the chapter on General Aid. 
Specific grants for specific kinds of service, which disregard the 
amount of local effort required, do not, it is believed, promote the 
best interests of the schools. 

5. Transportation. — In order to assist communities in bearing 
the expenses of transportation, it is recommended that Special Aid be 
granted on the basis of the deficiency in valuation and the amount 
expended by the district during the previous year, as shown in the 
following table: 



Table 49. — Equalized Valuation Per Teacher and Percent of Expenses 
FOR Transportation to Be Paid by State 

Percent of 
Equalized valuation expense to be 

per teacher paid by State 

$0- $9,000 96 

10,000- 19,000 92 

20,000- 29,000 88 

30,000- 39,000 84 

40,000- 49,000 80 

50,000- 59,000 76 

60,000- 69,000 72 

70,000- 79,000 68 

80,000- 89,000 64 

90,000- 99,000 60 

100,000-109,000 56 

110,000-119,000 52 

120,000-129,000 48 

130,000-139,000 44 

140,000-149,000 40 

150,000-159,000 36 

160,000-169,000 32 

170,000-179,000 28 

180,000-189,000 24 

190,000-199,000 20 

200,000-209,000 16 

210,000-219,000 12 

220,000-229,000 8 

230,000-239,000 4 

11 i6i 



6. Teachers in Rtjral Schools. — ^To induce competent teachers 
to go into the outlying rural schools, where at present they are 
seldom found, it is recommended by the Survey that the State 
make a direct grant of $10 per month to the district for the benefit 
of each individual teacher possessing the qualifications named below 
who teaches in an outlying one-teacher rural school designated by 
the State Department as a one-teacher rural school which should 
not be abandoned and consolidated with other schools in any future 
scheme of organization; this grant to be increased to $15 per month 
for the second year and $17 and $20 for the third and fourth years. 
The qualifications to be fulfilled should be either: 

{a) A normal school graduate or equivalent with three years of 
teaching experience, or 

{b) A graduate of one of the rural teacher training departments 
of the normal school as provided for in the section of the Survey on 
Preparation of Teachers. 

This grant is made directly to the teacher in order that the local 
district may not include it as part of her regular salary in the 
operation of the minimum salary law and also in order that a local 
school district may not obtain benefit thereby. 

The application of this aid is Hmited to outlying districts in order 
that the State may not encourage the continuance of one-teacher 
schools which, in the interests of the schools of the entire State, 
should be consolidated with a central school. 

7. Supervisory Quota. — ^A supervisory quota of $800 per year 
now applies to those villages and cities employing a superintendent. 
This quota as now constituted does not affect the rural school dis- 
tricts. It should be extended so as to apply to community districts 
employing a supervising principal giving less than one-half of his 
time to teaching. As in the case of the academic quota it has 
served good use in the past, but does not, in the judgment of the 
Survey, reward school districts or stimulate them to put forth 
greater effort except in the case of those districts that are consider- 
ing for the first time or who have recently voted to have a superin- 
tendent of schools. It should be modified so as to be made appli- 
cable for a period not exceeding twenty years from the creation of 
the ofl&ce. 

162 



8. Abandoned Buildings. — In order to induce citizens to per- 
manently abandon the one-teacher schools, other than those which 
the State Department of Education has approved for continuance 
on sufficient grounds, it is recommended that $100 be granted for 
each such building so abandoned for a period of twenty years. 



163 



CHAPTER XII 
FIELD WORK 

THE Administration Division of the Survey has suggested 
certain changes in the local territorial unit for the support of 
schools. The Financial Section has likewise recommended 
such changes in the preceding chapters, and also in succeeding chap- 
ters relative to the system of subventions or aid from the State. It 
was very much desired that these suggested modifications be tried 
out in actual situations both in order that the Survey might have a 
check upon its recommendations through actual trial, and also in 
order that the citizens of the State might have rehable data upon 
which to base their judgments as to the wisdom of the recommenda- 
tions made by the Survey in this field. 

At the time the Financial Section was compelled to begin its 
field work, the Administrative Division of the Survey had not as 
yet completed the redistribution of the territory in any county upon 
purely educational grounds. It was necessary, therefore, for the 
Financial Section to make such a redistribution in the territory of 
such counties as were assigned to it, namely, Delaware, Monroe and 
Tompkins, in order to have a proper basis for carrying on the 
necessary financial studies. These three counties furnished a wide 
range of situations typical of the varied conditions existing through- 
out the entire State. 

Redistribution of Territory into School Districts 

In dividing the territory in these counties into more efficient school 
districts the Financial Section of the Survey endeavored to obtain 
data which would be of assistance in determining costs of schools 
under any of a number of reorganizations which might finally be 
recommended by the Administration Section. The Committee of 
Direction, through its chairman, George A. Works, performed a 

164 



very helpful part in thus co-ordinating the efforts of the two divi- 
sions of the Survey. 

One of the first tasks of the field work was to agree upon prin- 
ciples and standards which would govern each member of the staff 
as he went out into his own territory. After a preliminary confer- 
ence at Ithaca and a preliminary visit to the various territories in 
which each member was to work, these principles and standards 
were finally agreed upon in a second conference held at Ithaca. 
During the time the field work was being carried on, the Director in 
charge of the Financial Section visited each of the territories and 
furthered co-ordination of the work. The purpose in all of this 
was to make sure that each member of the staff was working in 
harmony with all of the others and was making at the same time 
the proper adaptations of the principles and standards to the pecu- 
liar situations found in the different regions. In other words, it was 
intended that they be guided by principles rather than by rules. 
While each man's work was to be such that it would be comparable 
with the others, at the same time he was expected to exercise such 
discretion as would permit the working out of those plans that were 
best adapted to each community. 

The principles adopted for guidance in this work were as follows : 

1 . The entire territory of such sections of each of the counties 
chosen for study shall be divided into territorial units for both 
elementary and high school purposes. 

2 . Each elementary school unit shall embrace such territory as will 
best further the education of all of the children contained therein, 
subject only to such limitations as environing conditions require. 

3. The elementary school districts thus determined upon shall 
then be grouped into high school units in such a way as will further 
the giving of the best educational opportunities to all of the children 
in the entire region. 

4. One of these high school units, or when conditions seem to 
require it, two or three such high school units, shall be formed into a 
community unit. 

5. In determining the bounds of these various units the surveyor 
will be guided by his own judgment after going over the ground, 
and after obtaining the advice of the district superintendent and of 

165 



such trustees and citizens with whom he may have opportunity to 
consult. Generally speaking, the advice of the district superin- 
tendent will be found better than that of any other person, and it 
is much to be desired that each field worker obtain as much assist- 
ance from each of the district superintendents as is possible. 

Standards. — ^The standards adopted for the best realization of 
the above principles were as follows: 

1. Number of pupils per teacher. 

(a) Elementary Schools. No teacher should have more than 
40 pupils, preferably not more than 30, nor less than 12 
pupils, unless exceptional conditions such as climatic or 
topographical conditions or sparse settlements warrant 
such a small number. 

(b) High Schools. One teacher to 20 pupils. No high 
school should have less than three teachers nor less than 
four years of work — sl high school may include grades 
seven and eight when they are organized as part of a 
junior high school. 

2. Longest walk. 

(a) To school building, one and one-half miles. 

(b) To meet conveyance, three-quarters of a mile. 

3. Longest haul. 

The time haul limit rather than the distance limit is con- 
sidered fundamental. The limit of one hour is placed as 
the maximum. For wagons, the distance limit for this 
time limit would ordinarily be two and one-half or three 
and one-half miles; for auto trucks, eight to twelve miles. 

4. In interpreting the above standards account should be taken 
of unfavorable conditions as regards: 

(a) Amount of rainfall and snow during the school year, the 
extent of drifted roads and length of time during which 
they are ordinarily in this condition. 

(b) Bad roads for other reasons. 

(c) Opportunities for shelter at waiting points. 

5. In interpreting the above standards it will be necessary to take 

into account also: 
(a) Type of roads. 

i66 



(b) Topographical conditions such as high hills or any other 
barrier of impediment. 

(c) The number of children that live in each part of the entire 
county, particularly in small villages. 

(d) Condition of buildings, particularly the new ones. 
Method of Work. — The method of operation of the surveyors 

when in the field may best be set forth in the words of one of them, 
Mr. Thomas A. Bock. ^ 

"With these standards in mind each surveyor went to work with 
the district superintendent of the territory which it was proposed to 
theoretically reorganize. 

"First a map of the territory was sought. Wherever possible 
the topographical map of the United States Geological Survey was 
used. On this schoolhouses and dwellings are already marked with 
considerable accuracy. 

"With a pen the district superintendent carefully outlined the 
boundaries of the existing school districts. 

"It should be noted here that in New York State, the school dis- 
trict, comprising the sending area about a single schoolhouse, is 
a corporate unit. It has very little relation to the township in 
which its territory lies. It may, in fact, he in several townships 
and in several counties. It has its own trustee, or trustees; employs 
its own teacher; levies its own taxes; makes loans and purchases, 
and is financially independent of every other part of the township. 
This makes it a comparatively easy matter to transfer a school 
district from one township to another, or to group any number of 
districts together. This differs from the situation in Pennsylvania, 
where a sub-division of a township having a single schoolhouse 
cannot be transferred from one township to another without break- 
ing off corporate relations with one township and establishing new 
corporate relations with another township, and readjusting the 
property interests and indebtedness which are affected by the 
process. 

"With the aid of the district superintendent districts were 
marked out on the topographical map which, with the aid of such 

^ Mr. Bock's entire article will be published in Schoolmen's Week Proceed- 
ings, 1922, University of Pennsylvania Bulletin. 

167 



reasonable transportation as was thought feasible, would bring the 
largest possible number of children together into graded schools. 

*^ In making these districts considerable time was spent in examin- 
ing roads and making sure by actual inspection of the exact loca- 
tion of the dwellings of those children who dwelt farthest from the 
proposed schoolhouse. The map having been drawn to scale, it was 
not, in most cases, necessary to measure distances. 

"Existing schoolhouses that were comparatively modern and 
would fit in with the new arrangements were to be continued in use. 
But in many cases new buildings were indicated. These were ten- 
tatively located, when possible, at such points as seemed to corre- 
spond with the natural gathering places of the community. Very 
frequently this happened to be in or near a village, but in many 
cases, the distance to the village was too great and other points, not 
community centers, but the junction of important valleys or roads, 
had to be selected. Occasionally the pupils of only two schools could 
be brought together at one schoolhouse, and a question arose as to 
whether one or two teachers should be provided. Not infrequently, 
in Delaware County, the location of a small one-teacher school could 
not be changed and the only question that arose was as to the need 
for a modern building and equipment and an efficient teacher. 

"When all the territory of a given district superintendent had 
been thus cut up into the smallest possible number of new school 
districts, and the number of school buildings had, in this way, been 
reduced to the smallest number that the topography would allow, 
or the district superintendent's judgment would approve, the newly 
formed districts (still using the word "district" to signify the 
"sending area" about a schoolhouse) were grouped into so-called 
school townships. These were not co-terminous with, and had no 
relation to the civil townships. 

"These school townships were theoretically organized for admin- 
istrative purposes. Usually a beginning was made by first com- 
bining into one group those districts which had a common trading 
center or lay in the same stream basin. Then the remaining 
smaller districts were united to those school townships which the 
topography, the usual course of travel, and the opinion of the dis- 
trict superintendent seemed to suggest. 

i68 



"These groupings into so-called community center districts, or 
school townships, sometimes determined the location of the high 
schools, though at times one school township would have several 
high schools. Usually the high schools were located on the basis of 
accessibility to the largest possible number of children. Efforts 
were always made to place them in a consolidated school building. 

"The high schools included were of four types: grades seven to ten, 
and seven to twelve academic, and seven to ten and seven to twelve 
Smith-Hughes type. Sometimes it was necessary to provide one 
agriculture and one homemaking teacher to work alternately in 
two small schools.'' 

Computation of Costs 

The Project Blank. — ^After the surveyors had, in the manner 
described above, covered their districts they proceeded to assemble 
costs of the reorganized schools. Blank forms were prepared for 
this purpose which required, in the first place, such a description 
of the various districts as to make certain, that all of the terri- 
tory was included in some project so that anyone not acquainted 
with the field could easily make certain that such had been done. 
In the second place the description of the district required such 
data as would make possible a check upon the judgment of the 
surveyors regarding the number of pupils coming from each of the 
districts for each of the various types of schools; and similar definite 
information relative to those pupils who were to be transported, 
regarding the type of vehicle that was to be used and the wage 
necessary to pay the driver. Finally, spaces on the blank were pro- 
vided in which the surveyors were required to place the valua- 
tions and the tax-rates, both actual and equalized, of each of the 
districts in order that the data might be conveniently at hand for 
the use of the surveyors and those who later examined their work 
under the present as well as under the reorganized system. The 
financial statement of the blank was designed to cover every essen- 
tial item of expense. It was also so arranged that it could be con- 
veniently totaled and proper deduction made for various forms of 
state aid. This form, called the " Project Blank " is given herewith. 



169 



PROJECT BLANK 

New York Rural School Survey 
Financial Section 

Local Reorganization Project No 

School located at 

County Supervisory District 

1. Towns involved District numbers 

1. Nos. 

2. Nos. 

3. Nos. 

4. Nos. 

Whole number of elementary pupils involved 

Secondary pupils 

2. Schools located in the above towns which are not consolidated. 

Those checked might properly be attached to this project to form a 
"school town" in a county reorganization. 

1. Nos. 

2. Nos. 

3. Nos. 

4. Nos. 

3. Schools located in the above towns that may be taken into other consolida- 

tion projects or attached thereto in a county reorganization. 
L Nos. 

2. Nos. 

3. Nos. 

4. Nos. 

Probable number of pupils 
Grades Grades Grades 

4. Pupils involved 1 to to to 

District — — — — — — 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 



Totals 



Number of teachers needed — Elem High 

5. Transportation 

District No. pupils Vehicles Annual wage 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. :. 

9. 

170 



6. Assessed valuations Assessed True Actual True 

District valuation valuation tax-rate tax-rate 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 



FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
First Year of Operation 

Elemen- Second- Com- 
tary ary bined 

Grades Grades 
I. Capital Outlays to to 

1. Building — Elem. rooms 

Sec. rooms 

2. Furniture 

3. Site, water, supply, sewage dis- 

posal, grading, walks 

4a. Wagons — elem sec 

4b. Trucks — elem sec 



Total 

Less amount for which 

building may be sold 

this year 

Total outlay 
11. Current expenses 
II. 5a. Salaries elem. teachers 

.... at $ $ 

.... at 

.... at 

5b. Sal. sec. teach, (acad. or voc?) 

.... at "? 

.... at "? 

.... at "? 

6. Other expenses of instruction 

7. Operation 

a. Salaries and wages of jani- 

tor, etc. 

b. Other expense of operation 

8. Maintenance 

9. Transportation 

a. Salaries 

b. Upkeep of vehicles includ- 

ing tires 

Gas and oil 
10. Other auxihary agencies 
n. Fixed charges 

12. General control 

13. Total current expenses 

171 



JCIAL STATEMENT— Continued 




FiEST Year of Operation 






Elemen- 


Second- 


Com- 


tary 
Grades 


ary 
Grades 


bined 


to 


to 





III. Debt Service 

14. School house bonds retired first 

year 

15. Interest on school house bonds 

16. Truck and wagon notes paid first 
year 

Interest on such notes 



17. 



18. 



Total debt service 



IV. Total Amount to Be Raised First 

Year 



Amount to be raised first year 

(from page 2) 
Tax-rates 

Actual rate assuming State 
aid suppHes 
dist. quotas at $ 

dist. quotas at 
teach, quotas at 
teach, quotas at 
teach, quotas at 
academic quotas at 
tuition pupils at 
Book-apparatus aid 
Smith-Hughes aid 
National gov't 
State 

Total 



Amount to be raised by local tax 

Actual rate on ass. valuation 

True tax-rate 

True tax-rate on current expenses assum- 
ing all to be paid by local tax 

True tax for outlays assuming entire 
amount to be paid in one year by local 
tax 

True tax-rate — debt service this year 

Actual rate same territory if this district 
had existed in 1919-20 and main- 
tained, same schools as located therein 
at that time 



Elemen- Second- 
tary ary 



Com- 
bined 



Standards. — General instructions regarding the preparation of 
the ''project blank/' including the statement of standards to be 
observed in the work were as follows: 



172 



In determining plans for financing remember : 

1. You are planning schools for the children in the entire region, 
town, community or county. 

2. That other things being equal, the larger the school the better. 

3. That if schools must be smaller than the standards, plans will 
have to be studied for state aid in case true valuations per teacher 
are low. 

4. That if territory chosen for elementary schools does not have 
sufficient pupils for an efficient high school you may consider fi- 
nancial plans both for a joint high school district including cost of 
transportation and board and also as an alternative, a plan for pay- 
ing tuition in another high school. 

5. The following standards for determining costs shall be observed 
except when a deviation from them is clearly warranted by the facts 
found in the local situation: 

Capital outlays. — Building, $4,000 per room, elementary school; 
$5,000 per room, high school. 

Equipment, $650 per room. Additional equipment for agricul- 
ture, minimum $200; for homemaking, minimum $300. $500 de- 
sirable in each case when assessed valuation warrants. 

Transportation, — ^Automobile, large van $3,500, small van $1,500, 
wagon $400-$500. 

Current expenses — salaries, — Salaries of elementary teachers, 
minimum $800 in consolidated schools, $720 in one-teacher schools. 
A uniform schedule should be followed in each county according to 
salaries now paid in schools as similar in character as can be found. 

Salaries in high schools obtained from Survey's study of New 
York Salaries 1920-21, Medians: 

Principals, academic, $1,600. 

Principals, teaching agriculture, $2,400. 

Teachers, academic, $1,100. 

Teachers, agriculture, head of department, $2,000. 

Teachers, homemaking, $1,100. 

Transportation — cost per pupil, — Illinois study 192 1, $0.22 per day. 

Ohio study, $0.16 per day. 

Preble County, Ohio: Wagons owned by district, $0.20 per day. 
Automobile vans owned by district, $0.12>^ per day. Automobile 
vans now owned by district, $0.23 per day. 

173 



Pennsylvania $0.16 per day, all kinds. 

Ohio study, salary of driver: Driver of wagon $90 per month. 
Driver of automobile $120 per month. Give considerable weight 
to local opinion as to cost of driver on the ground. 

Number of Pupils per Truck. — Hard road, 20 to 40 or 50 according 
to size of truck. Wagon on dirt road, maximum number 24. 

Family transportation to automobile or schoolhouse, maximum 
$20 per month. 

Board in lieu of transportation, $3.50 to $5.00 per week. 

Other Expenses of Instruction,'^ — Elementary schools: $26 per 
teacher, $0.78 per pupil. 

Secondary schools: Academic, $47.20 per teacher, $4.25 per 
pupil. 

Academic and vocational combined, $84.40 per teacher, $13.68 
per pupil. 

Operation and Maintenance} — ^Janitor, $64 per teacher, $2.80 
per pupil. 

Other operating costs, $120.08 per teacher, $5.26 per pupil. 

Maintenance, $34.06 per teacher, $1.49 per pupil. 

Transportation, $180.70 per teacher, $7.91 per pupil (of second- 
ary importance). 

Other auxiliary agencies, $19.25 per teacher, $0.84 per pupil. 

Fixed charges $22.93 per teacher, or $1.00 per pupil (of secondary 
importance) . 

General control, $1.00 per pupil. 

Additional instruction and standards were prepared after the 
field work had been entered upon. These were as follows: 

1. Instead of dividing all schools into elementary schools and 
high schools it seems best, in some cases at least, to provide for the 
financing of junior high schools. Some of these junior high schools 
may not have a senior high school above them. In other com- 
munities the junior and senior high schools may be combined into 
one. Each field worker is to use his own judgment as to the best 
type of school to have established in each community. Each field 

- Based on costs in seven consolidated districts in New York State in which 
academic departments teaching agriculture and home economics were main- 
tained, 1919-1920. 

174 



worker should, in the course of his work, furnish an example of 
each of the three types of high schools — junior high schools only, 
junior and senior high schools combined, and the regular four-year 
high school. 

2. In consequence of what is outlined in No. 1 above there is pro- 
vided on the blank forms, paragraph 4, three columns at the heads 
of which the grades covered in each case are to be filled in by the 
field worker. (See page 170.) 

3. Standards in junior high schools: Minimum number of 
teachers, 3. 

Minimum number of pupils per teacher, 20. 
Salaries of teacher of agriculture and principal, $1,500. 
Salary of teacher of home-making, $1,000. 
Salary of teacher of academic subjects, $900. 
It is expected that the first two teachers will each do some 
academic work. 

4. Bonds — standards: 

{a) Bonds issued for purchase of site, schoolhouse, etc., 
twenty-year period, one-twentieth retired the first year, 
interest five and one-half percent on the total issue should 
be paid during the first year. 
(&) Notes issued for purchase of trucks and wagons, five-year 
period, one-fifth retired the first year, interest six per 
cent. Interest paid first year on total issue. 
Methods of Work. — The methods observed by the field workers 
in the estimation of costs have been described by the same member 
of the staff quoted above, in the following words '} 

^^ Average attendance figures were usually used to determine the 
number of children to be housed and transported, but in some cases 
a median between total enrolment and average attendance was 
substituted. 

"The kind of conveyance to be used and the annual wage of the 
driver were both based upon the kind of conveyance now in use in 
nearby districts and the annual cost for the same. 

"Usually the conveyances in use were privately owned. Hence 

1 Mr. Bock's entire article will be published in Schoolmen's Week Proceedings, 
1922, University of Pennsylvania Bulletin. 

175 



this practice was followed in the reorganization projects with this 
exception — that in each project requiring more than one convey- 
ance, provision was made for the purchase of one modern school 
wagon or truck by the district, the first year. 

" In working out transportation routes, as was done in practically 
every case, pupils were obliged to walk to a main road to meet the 
conveyance only when it was noted that during inclement weather 
a dwelling house offered shelter near the meeting point. 

"The items dealing with assessments require some explanation. 
As noted above, the assessment is made by a local board of assessors, 
and, as in Pennsylvania, is usually not full value assessment. 

"The State Equalization Board, or Tax Commission, a perma- 
nent body of taxation experts on full time service, annually compares 
current sales of property with local assessed values. Then they 
give each township an assessment rating based upon these sales as 
70 percent, 82 percent, etc. These ratings, published annually in 
book form, indicate the percentage of its true value at which prop- 
erty is locally assessed. Hence, when the local assessed valuations 
had been obtained from the district superintendent's report, the 
true valuation and true tax-rate for each district could be readily 
computed. This true tax-rate, being on a 100 percent valuation 
makes a reasonably fair basis of comparison between the several 
districts. 

"On the basis of the sum of the true valuations of all the districts 
involved in a reorganized project, and the total annual expendi- 
tures of the same districts, minus the state aid, the surveyor com- 
puted what would have been the cost and the true tax-rate for 
operating the existing schools as they were during 1919-1920, pro- 
vided the territory in the project had been reorganized into the 
proposed larger administrative units. 

"Upon these facts as a basis, it was beUeved that the farmers of 
the State could form a sound judgment as to whether the existing 
organization of school districts in the State should be modified. 
Such reorganization was found to raise the tax-rate in some dis- 
tricts and lower the rate in others.'' 

"Standards for determining costs were agreed to but were sub- 
ject to some modifications by reason of local conditions. 

176 



'^The schoolhouses suggested were of such pretentiousness only 
as the best thought of the local community would be likely to ap- 
prove. Inasmuch as rural schoolhouses in New York State are 
somewhat smaller than usual, and are usually of frame construction, 
the standard of prices may seem somewhat low. " 

It should be noticed that in the use of the blanks, costs of elemen- 
tary and secondary schools are kept separate throughout; that to the 
total of current expenses is added the debt service giving the total 
amount to be raised the first year; that from this is deducted the 
state aid giving the net amount to be raised by local tax; and that the 
items at the close furnish costs in terms of actual and true tax-rates. 

As the ^^project blanks'' were completed by the surveyor, while 
in the field, they were sent to the ofiice of the Director of the Finan- 
cial Section where they were checked for accuracy of computation. 
They were then studied comparatively by the Director and where it 
seemed that one surveyor was extreme in his estimation of costs the 
proper revision was made by the surveyor, not only in his costs, but 
also in the amount of the tax-rates at the end of the "project blank." 

Tabulation of Data 

In order to put the data in such form as would enable the Sur- 
vey to make a study of the costs thus ascertained, the most important 
items contained in the "project blank " were tabulated on large "pro- 
ject tables. " The headings of the various columns in these "project 
tables" are as follows: 

Name of project. 
Equalized valuation. 
Equalized valuation per teacher. 
Present No. teachers. Reorganized No. 
Salaries : 
Elementary — 

Amount No. teachers. 
Secondary — 

Amount No. teachers. 
Vocational — 

Amount No. teachers. 
" ransportation 

No. pupils transported. 
Other expenses. 

12 177 



Debt service. 

Total expenses. 

Total payments. 

Equalized tax without state aid. 

For current expenses. 

For transportation. 

For debt service. 
Present plan — 

Total cost. 
Present state aid. 
Equalized tax without state aid. 
Equalized tax rate with state aid. 

The data called for under the above headings, which were not fur- 
nished by the ^'project blanks, " were gathered from other sources or 
were computed from data contained therein. Undoubtedly the most 
painstaking work required of the Survey was spent in the prepara- 
tion of these ''project tables." Every ''project" was first worked 
out separately and afterwards combined. The wide range of the 
data thus brought together made it possible to inquire into a vast 
number of relationships, but because of lack of space, only those 
brought out in succeeding chapters can be entered upon here. 



178 



CHAPTER XIII 

COMPARISON OF COSTS, STATE AID AND TAX- 
RATES UNDER PRESENT AND 
PROPOSED PLANS 

THE "project table'' described in Chapter XII provided the 
material from which deductions could be made as to com- 
parative costs of schools under varying conditions as well 
as to the effects of the plan of state aid recommended in Chapter 
X. Inasmuch as the Joint Committee on Rural Schools had 
virtually decided to accept the community unit for the purpose of 
taxation by the time this work was finished, it seemed desirable to 
make comparison of costs under each of the following sets of condi- 
tions. 

1 . Costs of schools in community districts maintaining the same 
schools as at present and continuing the present system of state 
aid. (Law of 1920.) 

2. Costs of schools in community districts maintaining the same 
schools as at present but with the revised form of aid recommended 
in Chapter X. 

3. Cost of schools completely reorganized into community dis- 
tricts in accordance with the plans of the field workers of the 
Financial Section of the Survey and with the revised form of state 
aid recommended in Chapter X. 

That which follows will describe the way in which the material 
furnished by the "project table" was utilized. 

The first step was to combine the "projects'' or school centers 
into "community districts." In doing this, effort was made to 
keep the number of community districts as close to the number of 
towns as conditions permitted on the ground that inasmuch as the 
people of New York State had become accustomed to conducting 

179 



their civil aiSfairs in towns, a territory of similar size might best be 
adapted to community districts. However, this principle was not 
followed whenever it seemed to the best interest of the schools not 
to do so. Town lines were totally disregarded in the making up 
of community districts. Table 50 gives a list of these fictitious 
community districts together with a description of the "projects'' 
that comprise them. District lines were disregarded in the making 
up of "projects" whenever it seemed advantageous to the pupils 
to do so.^ 

It will be noticed that there is considerable variety in the type 
of schools demanded, in the number of pupils and teachers, and also 
in the number of combined districts and equalized valuations. The 
Survey Staff believes this is inevitable. This fact has an important 
bearing upon comparative costs; but the plans for state aid here- 
with recommended takes away most, if not all, of the practical 
difficulties that would otherwise arise, since it adjusts itself so 
readily and so completely to the needs of the respective districts, 
stimulating them to their best efforts and complementing them in 
such a way that an efficient school is possible without undue strain 
upon the local tax-payers. 

The expense of conducting the schools now situated in each of 
these community districts as well as of the reorganized schools as 
arranged by the Survey Staff is given in Table 51. The significant 
point in this table is the increased cost of the reorganized schools. 
These increases range all the way from one to seventy-seven percent., 
the lowest increases, on the whole, being in Monroe County, the 
highest in Delaware County. The median increase is approxi- 
mately thirty-five percent. From this it may be concluded that 
it will cost the local and the state governments together practically 
one-third more to run a first-class system of rural schools than to 
conduct the present system. In this connection it should be 

^ It should be said that while this organization of projects in community dis- 
tricts was done with great care, the time at the disposal of the committee was 
not sufficient to warrant the adoption of such distribution of territory as that 
which should be followed if the community districts were estabHshed by law. 
It is beheved, however, to be sufficiently close to the form of organization to be 
adopted to furnish rehable material for vahd conclusions regarding the costs of 
schools and the operation of the plan of state aid recommended herein. 

i8o 



W 
O 

U 

CO 

o 
H 






C/3 

H 
U 
W 
t— » 

< 



O 
52; 

o 

M 

u 

en 

Q 

Q 

< 
H 

C/3 



O 
Hi 

H 



(U o 

o g^ 



52 






:3 



13 

S3 

• I-* 

!=! 

bC 
;h 
O 



c3 
O 

H 



.2 

'•+3 
c3 

CJ 

O 
> 



u 



B 

3 









c/3 H 



S 



1=^ 



o 
o 

CJ 






to 
to 


501,740 
420,479 
444,145 
491,376 


^ 00 VO 
rt^ CN Tf OS fO 
co^l>^ LO^ 0^ "^^t"^ 

t^ i:^ to r-. ro 

CN 00 fO CX) to ro 
LO^vO T-H^CN^O 0^ 





CX) ro !>. 


CO On to 




• T-H 


Cvl ^ CM CN • • 



CO CO fO ''-I CM 



CO to CO C<J -^ 



VO On vOt^ vo 



VO vo vo 00 O 

^ T^l Tfl 1— ( t-^ 



VO 



00 t^ vO to 



CN 



o 









bC bO 



vo -rH to CO Oq Cvl 



CM 1— I CN to Tt< CO 



VO VO O "tH C50 00 



to O to Cq CN to 

vO T-H CO 00 ■<— I ■«— t 

CO T-H "^ '— I T— ( T— I 



"^ vo vo O Ot^ 



U CJ 

<< 
jh jh jii 

b£) tuO b£) 



bO 



bc 



*^ ^ ^ " 

to --i bJO--^ 
• ^ CO j^ ra 



K W W 






000 PO 




On C^ On 




r^ to i-H 




00 •'-H t^ 




ON 




00 00 




t^ CM 




to vo to 




-vt^ CM 




• y—^ 




CN CM 




CN T-H 




to CO CO 




CM y-i 




t^t^ to 




rh CO 








82!S 




T-i 




cxD VO :>• 




tH t— ( 




^ 


CO 


•----:;5 


6 


Wgg 


CJ 


onal 
catio 
catio 


Vh 


43 


CO 


n>> 


Q 

Pn 


ad. Vo 

High, 

ademy 


> 




(V 




a 




3 






fl> 




^H 


d 


F=* 


C 


f$ 


OX5.^ 




Walt 
Ham 
Delh 



181 



1 

i 



W 
O 

U 

l-H 

o 
H 



w 

W 



c/3 
H 
U 
W 
I—. 
O 
P«^ 
Ph 
(J 
u 

& 

H 
P4 
o 

o 

u 
in 
W 

Q 



H 

C/3 
M 

d 

H 
>A 
pq 



T3 C! 

^^ <u o 

O cj g 

<u > 



en 



a; 

;3 



T3 

O 
(1> 



o 

H 



.2 

;2 









0) 
CD 









o 
o 



O 

H 



OsoOvO<>ir>.vOioOONThu-5 

u-T -th' (X) vcT CN^ -n-T o^t^-T r<r <>r^>r 

T-H^T-H CNOOrOLOcorovOCNCO 



t^THrHlOCs|UOCNT-IOOTH^-l 



T-l • -rH . -CM 



CO • • CN • tH • -CO 



TflrHTHCNCNfOCNTHrOT-lTH 



fOCNCS'^Th'vorocsioerscNj 



CNf-iCNOOrMOOOrOCMOiO 



TH<NrOt^r^iOPOCNOOCNrq 



-^J^^^ "<-H^ ON^i>^ lO^ Ol^ tq^ On^ 

j>^ o" ocT cT oT vcT cn" o" ^ 

ONCNrovOroir^CNT-HO 



ON^r^fOrovOro-T-HOO 



CO • • »0 • ro • • tJh 



VOTHCNOOrOfO^OTH-^ 



rjHC^lTtiiOvOON'^CNO 



OOrOOM>'"^l:^OONON 
i-H CN CD J>* vo O ro '-I 



j>.c^iOi>.ir)00'*rgos 



6 



o 
o 

> 



vO 



.£3 
bo 



fcJO 



<: 









O 
en 

*> 

u 

0) 
I— I 

Q 



-^ g g.g g.2 a a g a a 

< S 3 H^S ^^3 3 H^3 3 






p^ o 



o 

en 

*> 



a a fl s c^ fi fl a 
^ a a-g a-2 a a-g 

<; H g < pq ►^W w <: 



^ ^ bo 
Pi o 



o 



182 



On Os O Tfi 00 lO 
CO Ot^ 00 CM lO 

"^^ ^q^ ov^ CN^ o^t^ 
T*" cs" irf -r-T crT ^" 

^ ^-H On <^ <5 CN 



(N LO (M o ro o 



CM -rH -T-H 



CfT 



00 rt< 00 fO CO O 



OS to 00 t^ CO O 
tH CN 



CN T-H T-H CN CSl t^ 

Thi -^ OS ">-• 0\ 00 

CN ^ CO -rH CO 



VO "^ lO so fO t^ 



CN rH CN lO O CO 
OS i:^ CN '-I i-H c-i 

O^ »>^ CN^ "^^ "^ O^ 
co'^ oT u^l>r irT CO*" 
CM t^ CNi O so 00 

SO lO T-i t^ "^ O^ 
cm" 



r^ CO '-H lo CN "rf 



CN • 'i:*^ CN • 00 tH 



^ ro tH rt^ CM 00 



CO O CM O "^ '^ 



CN OS CO OS lO O 
OS ■rH CN CN SO Os 

i-H CO T-H CO 



OS so CN O ^ CO 



^ 6 




f«> O 




u > 


^-H ^ 


•C 7d 


6-5, § 


t/l K 


!z: .^ o 




istrict ] 
Voc.H 

ry 

ry 

il High 

ry 

Vocat 


l-sgi^g.-a 


>, a fi fi o a s 

W 0) o (U ^3 a; 0) 


. > pq < hH,w Hii» 


9 ^ § § «^ B'^ 

•g g sj s s S 


C <;ww>w< 


4-> 


a 


S 


3 



O 

U 

<L> 

2 
§ 



O 



bo 
O 



o o 



:2 o 



OSTfTjHOCNtolOOOOlO 
OOI>-OIOSOCNCNCOCNLO 
On lO lO ■^'"i^OO^'^Os^'"!,'^ 

cn" oT "^ T^" scT scT TiT o>r Tt^" c<r 

LOt^CNCNOsLO^"<-HOiO 

SOiO-^COCN^— lT-i\0^— 1^— I 



t0C0"^C0CN^-lT-|lO.rHTH 



CM 



COtH 



iOC0^C0CN-«-Hv0iO^TH 



OOt^iO'^POCMCNOOCMCM 



■.-HVOrHLOThlt^CMTHOOlO 
•^00^-IOS'^'<-ISOIOCNCO 



OOSO^^COCOCNSOCOCMCN 



^ CO 

6 

;^ 

u 



(=1 

.2 
u 

c^ c^ c^ c^ c^ e^ .y c^ c^ c^ 



K^ O O CJ O <U fl^ 



> 

{3 



^"^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ '^^ /\ '^"^ '*^. >*^ 



7^ >^ 



o - 









183 



remembered that the wastes and inefficiencies in the present system 
have been removed to a considerable degree in the reorganized plan, 
and that the gain in actual efficiency would probably be far greater 
than the increase in the costs. 



Table 51. — Comparison of Expenses, in Community Districts — (1) With 
Schools as Now Organized; (2) With Reorganized Community Schools; 
(3) Percent of Increase 



Delaware County 

Supervisory District No. 1 

Sidney Center 

Mason ville 

Tompkins 

Supervisory District No. 2 

Colchester 

Hancock 

Supervisory District No. 3 

Delhi 

Walton 

Hamden 

Supervisory District No. 5 

Franklin 

Davenport 

Meredith 

Supervisory District No. 6 

Stamford 

Harpersfield 

Kortright 

Bovina 

Tompkins County 

Supervisory District No. 1 

Newfield 

Enfield 

Ulysses 

Supervisory District No. 3 

Danby 

Caroline 

Dryden 

Monroe County 

Supervisory District No. 1 

Henrietta 

Supervisory District No. 2 

Mendon 

Supervisory District No. 3 

Parma 

Supervisory District No. 4 

Ogden 



1 


2 


$7,953 
19,359 
16,463 


$11,449 
21,085 
18,468 


35,459 
49,600 


54,398 
65,734 


45,089 

78,722 
10,123 


50,594 
99,961 
13,724 


26,454 
16,333 
10,150 


35,826 
22,428 
17,870 


22,196 
22,322 
19,053 
11,350 


19,856 
30,126 
24,677 
16,664 


22,208 

7,925 

29,892 


30,003 

11,885 
28,535 


18,314 
15,913 
31,146 


21,756 
21,672 
39,186 


19,605 


29,600 


37,680 


38,907 


33,725 


33,934 


39,852 


46,326 



43.7 

8.9 

12.5 

53.5 
32.5 

12.2 
26.9 
35.5 

35.4 
37.3 
76.05 



35.5 
29.5 
46.8 



35.5 
49.9 



18.7 
36.1 
25.8 



50.9 
3.2 
.61 

16.6 



184 



Another significant conclusion is that an increase of over one- 
third in the costs of schools in rural communities could not possibly 
be borne by them alone; if rural New York ever has the educational 
system it should have, it must be with the assistance of the State as 
a whole. 

Before showing in detail just how the plans recommended in 
Chapter X work out in the 22 community districts here presented 
it is desirable again to point out the fact that the fundamental 
purpose is to equalize local tax-rates in all classes of districts for 
the same types of schools irrespective of valuations. While there 
will be differences in the tax-rates due not only to the efforts that 
districts make to maintain the most efficient schools but also to failures 
to come up to certain standards for which penalties are exacted, yet 
there will be a very strong tendency to have local tax-rates through- 
out the entire State approach the median. It is estimated that 
this median point for local tax-rates, after state aid has been de- 
ducted under the plans proposed herewith, will be near five or five 
and one-half mills as long as the percent scale of expenses is main- 
tained. It is important in judging the effect of this proposed plan 
of state aid that this probable median be kept in mind; also the 
further fact that the taxes of districts other than common school 
districts will be reduced by larger amounts of state aid. More- 
over, it should be pointed out, in this connection that this does not 
necessarily imply an increased cost of schools to the state govern- 
ment. New York through its central government already bears a 
fair share of the expenses of schools. The difficulty is that this 
central aid is not efl&ciently distributed under the present district 
and teacher quota systems. 

Table 52 gives the essential facts from the "project tables'' which 
make possible an analysis of the relationship between state aid and 
total expenses and the costs of the building and vehicles which 
would be required in order to put reorganized schools into effect. 
It will be noticed that there is a wide range in the proportion of 
state aid varying from eighteen to seventy-five percent, the median 
percent being about fifty-seven. This seems to be a large propor- 
tion at first glance. It should be remembered in the first place, 
however, that these figures include both General Aid and all forms 

185 



« 


^1 - 




O t^ t-» LOO O t^ c 




OC 


c 

OC 




c 




igg 


> 
> 






gg 


^ 


i^xJ a-3 




r-^oo oo t^ C 


>^ oq^oo t-^ 




lO oo NC 




'^'"Js^"^ 






CN rs^NO^ 


)— 1 


t^l §^ 






r» ^ 


















p^ 




r^firToo "^ (N 


T-T^o^u- 




T-H^Tir,-. 




(rTT^rio'^T^ 






OO^NO^co" 


H 


^5 > 




^^T-( 


CN r^ 


> CO T-H 
















00 

H- 1 


co^ '^ 


























CD TJ Ch '^ 




ogg 


8S 


oog 




88S 




ssss 






888 


H 




lO LO LT 


f^ c 


CD lO l'" 




^D CD C 




^D to to t/" 






^5 ^D ^D 


t_( 


























o:^ ^-c^ 




rrTffTLr 


cCc 


On CvJ OC 




O'^rf rt 




t^l:^ OOC 






i-H T-H vO 


^ 


"1 ^ 




H^^ 


On^ 


to tH CN 




COCNOC 




CO CN CN CN 






rjH ro CO 


g 




€^ 




^—1 tH 
















O 

U 


?1 f? 




^x:^ oc 


CN '^ 


CNlO C 




VOO <N 




«M rt^ O <N 






^ Tt<l:^ 


Q 


4-^ 




ON '— 1 (^ 


vO LT 


O ON t^ 




CO oq Tt 




rt^ oqlO^- 






C^l T-H to 






r:*H lO li- 


to I/" 


VO NO lO 




l>IuSi-^ 




^>I to NO to 






NO NO NO 


< 


4-) 
























« 


J=! -H 
























o 
w 


o'^i^ 




OMO OC 


Ov ^ 


•rH CN O' 




t^ CO to 




oothio a 






ON CO NO 


»:; o o 




T^ht^ vc 


vO"~ 


vO^u^ 




'-INONC 




'-t ■^ NO lO 






NO NOCN 


Ph 


























'2 S 


























*c3 c« 




ooc 


VOVC 


oovc 




Tt^OO 




OnOOC 






CO O NO 


Iz; 




00 t^ 1> 


CM <r; 


lO On NC 




CN 00 CN 




On T-ir-^ NC 






00 OnO 


M 




vO OOii- 


ON^Th 


co^O^C 




0^-H>C 




NO ^ CM>- 






os^in 


























H 


-^ B^ 




lOto (N 


l>riy~ 


cvTcvToc 




VO'^rf-rH 




CO CN to O^ 






Ot^ 00 


s 


4J X 




€^^ T- 


ro fO 


CO t:^ 




^—1 T-1 




T-l ^-H 






CN 


O 
Ph 
CM 


m <D 
















































.^ c/^ 




Qn LO OC 


00^ 


T^T-trt 




VOOOO 




NO NO X>» to 






ro toto 


O} 


<u ^ 




^§^ 


On «r; 


ON NO CN 




CN rsit-- 




to rq t^ Tt 






O ooco 


^ C/D 




ro t^ 


lO On t^ 




OO^TjH^OC 




00 1-1 NO NC 






O ooto 




^ s 
























S 




^ ^ oc 


rf^ lO 


O On CO 




to"<>fx~^ 




ON O tH NO 






O T-H oo 


H 


eS- 




tH CN -,-H 


lO vc 


lO ON tH 




CO CM T-H 




th CO CN ^ 






CO ^ CN 


g 




€^ 




















CO 


1 »-^ 
























Q 


^ <1> J-l 




OOC 


OC 


oo c<: 




ON to CN 




SSS:^ 






^ CO 00 


Iz; 




ooc 


OC 
lO c 


oot^ 




THt^ir: 








o5o 


<i: 




CN Tfi u- 


«N 1— !!>. 




On Ov CN 




CO 00 to NC 








§.2 ^ 




























t^ !>. O^ 


0"t- 


OOT^rt 




r^OsO 




t~^ to tH CO 






S2!2S2 




rt^t^a 


00 r^ 


O to r<i 




lO C<1 «N 




1— 1 ON 1-H cf; 






o -^O 


H §"^ 








^— 1 t— 1 T— 




CM tH ^ 




CN tH r-l T- 






^ -^ CN 


M 

PM 


>H W 


























<U >H 




























00 CO T- 


TtHC^ 


oorhoc 




NO r<i t^ 




O lO CN O^ 






T^H lOlO 


C/D 






CO Tt 


CM to 




T-l T-l 




▼H tH tH 






1—1 1—1 


1 


;z; ii 
























1— ( 












































































> 
























-r 


























^ 






T-H 






(M 




CO 






lO 








NO 












tH 








o 






6 






6 




6 






6 








6 












6 








M 






^ 






^ 




Iz; 






"^ 








^ 












Iz; 








t/i 






•M 






4-> 




■i-i 






4-> 








4-> 












■«>> 








►^ 






o 






u 




o 






CJ 








u 












,o 








S 






•c 






'C 




•c 






•n 








•n 












*C 
















4-> 




■(-> 






Xj 








Xj 












4-) 








1 








5^ 




C/3 

5 






If} 

5 




4J 




5 




^ 




b 

C 


.22 








1. 




o 


ban 

> C c« F 


^^^ 


b 




c 


-«a- 


b^-S^ 


^3 


b-d 




1 

pq 








II 


d 4^ 

O'C 


11 11 
pal 


o o ^2 bc c^ 

^ i3 c3 O c 








c^ 




3 


^ " ^ 


^ 




;=! 




B 

o 


^ 








O) 


C/2 


OJ 


in 




m 




C/2 








Q 




































^ 











i86 



ooo 

ooo 



On '=f ro 
On On ^—1 
CN t^ — I 



-"-H \0 NO 
tH -.-H CN 



(M O 



o 
o 



00 



NO 



NO (M 



o 

o 



00 t— 



888 


o 


^ 


^ 


^ 


CM 


g 


o 


g 












ON NO NO 


00 


oo 


o 


'^ 


CN Csl r:t^ 


T^ 


T*H 


00 


T— 1 
^— 1 


lo NOr-. 


NO 


CN 


00 


o 


On 00 ro 


00 


^ 


y—< 


o 


ID "^ lO 


NO 


NO 


NO 


lO 


roi:^ 00 


00 


lO 


CO 


On 


vO NO lO 


li-5 


CO 




CO 


OOO 


CN 


O 


00 


O 


^rr)rr> 


O 


J>. 


^ 


i:^ 


OO NOI:^ 


lO 


LO 


Tt^ 


CN 












ro "^ r<j 


Tt^ 


ro 


^ 


00 


■«-l T-H CS 




y—i 






VO CN NO 


^ 


x>- 


^ 


NO 


lOl:^ 00 


(^ 


O 


CO 


CN 


t^ NC^ 


NO 


OS 


On 


CO 












^^Os 


ON 


00 


CO 


NO 


CM CN CO 


Csl 


CO 


CO 


-^ 



o 

ON 
NO^ 

CN 



ON 



00 

o 



o 

CO 




of Special Aid; also that the average 
equalized valuation per teacher of 
the entire State is $240,000, and 
that there are but two districts in 
this table which have a higher valua- 
tion per teacher. Each of these has 
but a small proportion of state aid. 
It will be observed, by comparing 
further the percents of state aid, or 
proportions of expense paid by the 
state, and the equalized valuations 
per teacher, that in general they 
vary inversely with each other. The 
correlation coefficient computed ac- 
cording to Spearman's Method of 
Rank Differences is unusually high, 
r= — .936. Table 53 shows the rank 
of each community district in each 
of these respects. 

In connection with outlays it will 
be observed that the costs of the 
building ^^ projects" in the various 
districts differ considerably. This 
is due to the differences in the size 
and condition of the present school 
plants, to the type and size of the 
community schools, and to the dif- 
ferent conceptions which people liv- 
ing in different portions of the State 
have regarding the kind of school 
building that should be erected. For 
instance, in Monroe County people 
insist that only modern fully fire- 
proof buildings shall be erected, 
while in Delaware County semi-fire- 
proof buildings are the most expen- 
sive that are considered. Another 

187 



factor causing differences in the initial cost of the additional school 
plant, is the number of children to be transported and the character 
of equipment provided for that purpose. It will be noticed the 
amount of transportation aid varies inversely to the equalized 
valuation per teacher in accordance with the provision for state aid 
given above. 

Table 53. — Relationship Between Percent of Total Expense Met by 
State Support and Equalized Valuation Per Teacher ^ 

Rank in 
Rank in percent equalized 
of total expense valuation 
Town met by State aid per teacher 

Stamford 1 22 

Ulysses 2 21 

Mendon 3 19 

Ogden 4 18 

Harpersfield 5 20 

Walton 6 17 

Sidney Center 7 16 

Hancock 8 13 

Henrietta 9 23 

Dryden 10 8 

Hamden 11 11 

Bovina 12 14 

Davenport 13 12 

Enfield 14 15 

Danby 15 10 

Delhi 16 6 

Meredith 17 9 

Kortright 18 7 

Caroline 19 1 

Tompkins 20 4 

Colchester 21 3 

Newfield ....22 5 

Masonville 23 2 

r = - .936 



As regards the local tax-rates for expenses as given in this table, 
it should be mentioned in the first place that these are equalized 
tax-rates and that on the whole they were found, in the Chapter on 
Valuations, to average about sixty percent of the actual tax-rates 
based upon assessed valuations. Thus, a six percent tax in this 
table represents a ten percent tax as generally levied. In the 
second place it will be noticed that none of these local tax-rates 

^ Spearman's Method of Rank Differences. 
i88 



fall below five nor reach as high as seven and one-half mills. All of 
them lie close together and near or just above the probable median 
local tax-rate for the entire State. This demonstrates the fact that 
the plan proposed in the previous chapter tends to equalize the local 
tax-rates. 

Table 54 furnishes a percentage analysis of state aid for expenses 
given in Table 52. Considerable variety in the percentages among 
the various community districts is noticeable in all types of aid. 
General Aid ranges from twenty-five to seventy-eight percent, 
transportation from five to thirty-six percent, secondary teachers 
from one to sixteen percent, agricultural and home economics from 
five to thirty-five percent, abandoned buildings from four to twenty- 
two percent. The medians are approximately sixty percent for 
General Aid, sixteen for transportation aid, nine for agricultural and 
home economics, ten for abandoned buildings and six for high 
schools. Again the general indirect correspondence between Gen- 
eral Aid and equalized valuation per teacher is noticeable. 

The most important comparison for practical purposes is that 
between the local tax-rates under the various systems of organization 
and state aid. Any citizen may properly wish to know how 
this reorganization plan would effect him. Table 55 is planned to 
answer this question with three different sets of actual conditions in 
mind. The three situations set out at the beginning of this chapter 
are covered in the columns numbered 1, 2, 3a and 3b. The tax-rates 
in Column 1 have been computed on the assumption that the ex- 
penses in each of the districts included would be the same in the 
year 1920-21 as in the year 1919-20 except for the increases in 
salaries, the amounts of which increases were ascertained from the 
State Commissioner of Education. From these expenses was 
deducted the amount of aid that was distributed to the districts in 
May, 1921. The remainder was divided by the equaUzed valuation 
of the district in question. These figures are, therefore, believed to 
be reliable. It will be noticed that they are lower than the tax-rates 
of these districts during the previous year as given in Chapter VI 
on Tax-Rates. This is due to the increased aid given by the State 
during the year 1920-21. 

Column 2 gives the tax-rates under the following conditions: The 

189 





doned 
ding 




^— 1 


ON t^ 


r*00 


lO "^ vo 


00 vo vo 


CN 


ON 


CN 


•rH 




^—1 




^ 


CN ~ tH T-H 
















fl r^ 


. 


o oo o o 


OOO 


OOO 


oooo 




o3 ;3 




ooo oo 


OOO 


OOO 


oooo 


(73 
H 


vO CsJ^O^ '^^^^ 


voi:^ LO 


OS oot^ 




< 


< 


^^-t-Tt-T ■.-TrrT t-Tt-T 


CN 


T-Tc^T^-H 


H 

C/3 
M 


H 




• . lO LO t^ 


• -00 


t^ CN On 

T— 1 y—i 


. . . . 


fi 


w 






















g 


c^ 


4^ 


vo VO VO 


vo 


OOO 






. . vO O vo 


. .vo 


c~^ ^D CD 


, 


s 


< 


• -"^ ^^'^^ • -^ 


^,°^P. 


'.'.'.. 


§ 




^"cn" 




T— 1 ^— 1 ^-H 




8 


>. 


1 -M 

p-l (J 


O 00 '^ rt^t^ 


00 OvLO 


t^TjH CO 


vo 00 TjH 00 




y—i 




▼H 


■rH 


§ 
























NJ 




• 


OOO oo 


f^ ^D ^D 


^D t***^ ^D 


nil 


s 


C_) 


4— > 


C5 CD ^D 


^D C5 (*^ 


o 


o oo ^ ^ ^ 


Tft O 'sh 


O vO ^ 


1 


c/:2 


< 


^^ -rH^CN 


Cn'tIh^ 


'-^'^ 


•^ 




^ 




^ Ot^ t^ TtH 


^O VO 


CN vO VO 


LO CN vO "^ 


4-) 


tH CN i-H tH ■.-H 


T-l ^-H ■»— I 


CN ro 


tH CN ro CN 


w 


art 






















g 


3-2 


. * 


OOO oo 


OOO 


T^HOO 


Tt^OOO 




S 


a 


O CN th \0 t^ 


O On -^ 


vo 00 00 


On t^ CN vo 


M 

H 


2 


00 oi^^ vq^o 


^..Ps^^ 


1— 1 vo T-t 


LO t^^OCJ^rJH^ 


H 


<: 


^^cn'csT vcTw^ 


T^'^Tt~T-r 


ro'"^" 


cn^u^cn" 


O 




&'i 


to cot^ o ^ 


CO t^ lO 


vo CN vo 


i^ '^ oo vo 


13 


vo vo vO i^ ^ 


t^ t^ vo 


^ lO T:h 


T^ vo ^lO 


p 














c/: 




00 lO o o o 


OOO 


OOO 


Si^8 


w 


0) 


4-) 


LO O vo 


vo ^D ^h 


H 


o 


a 


vO^CN^ro^ OO^OC 


vq^ro^CN^ 


On cO^<^ 


t^ininin^ 


< 




<: 


rfTcTocT vO~(N 


ro C^r lo" 


i>rirr 


i-TtCtdo 


C/2 




^^T-i CN CS 


CN ro 






P^ 


rs 












o 


*c3 




OOO O VC 


O O vO 


^oo 


OsOOO 




00 !>. t^ Csj rr 


LO Ov vO 


CN 00 CN 


On T-H j>. vo 


w 


"13 


vo 00 LO Ov '^ 


ro O O 


O^^^^^ 


O '^^Cv^t^^ 


ki^ 










w 


4-i 


o 2^ 


lO lO CN t^ LT 


CN CN 00 


vo'~^"t4' 


rfTcN^LrTar 


>^ 


o*. 


y a, 


€^^ th ro r^ 


ro ^ 




T-H y-i 


Hi 


H 












J2; 
< 


^ 




888 8S 


5 O O ro 


On LO CN 


S38^ 


'? 


Oh ^ 


> O Ot^ 


tH J>. lO 


(iq 


> 


r-t -C 


Oa ^ lO lO c 


> CN -»-< r^ 


on on CN 


ro 00 LO vo 




2 'Ti 










O 


o 


o ^ 


t^ t^ On vo -r- 


r oor*^^ 


r^T^hO 


l:^ to -.-H ro 


^ 


=3. 


3- 


rf i:^ ON 00 ro O to CN 


LO CN CS 


-.-H On ---1 ro 


g 

H 


h" 


S ^ 


< y-H-r-i yr-{ 


CN i-H i-H 


CN ^ ^ i-H 








^ 






CM 




CO 






LO 






VO 






• 


H 

^ 






i 

■4-> 






1 

-4-> 




1 

4-> 






1 

4-) 






1 

4-> 








1 






^O 






^U 




CJ 






<J 






CJ 








rj5 






*Ih 






*H 




•fl 






'u 






•c 








»o 






-*-> ^H 




■4-i 




4J 






4-> 






4-> 














'S ^ rt (L 








S 






s 


4- 




s 


2 




< 








£;> 




d 


»H OJ IL (V) 


b'H'l-S : 


H 






1'= 


1^ 


•>a&5| 








13^ ^ 


(n 


C/2 


C/} 








Q 































190 



J^ CS Os OS lO O 



o 



00 Os fO 



888 


888 


g 


g 


g 


o 


'^O Os ^O 


CO -t"^ CO 


Os 


CO 


'^ 


\0 
















•«— 1 T-l 


«— 1 


cs 




1— 1 






00 r<5 Tt< 




• t>-. 


lO 


CN 


T— 1 


OS 


'^ CN 


■ 


* 


CO 




r*^ 




roOO 




O 


O 


O 


O 


^ 


ro (^ c^ 




.ITi 


lO 


lO 




(— ^ 


■f""^ (^^ ^^ 




. vo 


lO 


lO 


00 


vO 
















^ -f-H CN 




ir— I 


T— 1 


T— 1 


1—1 


1—1 


-rH CSOS 


1—1 


• ^ 


On 


00 


CN 


OS 


o o o 


O 


^ 


^ 


^ 


o 


^ 


ooo 


o 


(^ 


t*— ^ 


(~^ 


o 


(^~) 


CN CN 00 


(>J 


.00 


rt^ 


1—1 


1—1 


1—1 


t^fOiO 


rt^t^ O 


l:^ 


IT) 


1—1 


00 


<N CO 


CO 


T— 1 T— 1 




CN 






OOO 


OOO 


1-^ 


o 


O 


o 




CN 


^-H CO 


CO 


LO 


vO 


l:^ 


lO '^t^ r:^ 


so lO CO 


CO 


o 




TtH 
















to cs 


Tf CN C<J 




rj^ 




i-H 


t^ O CO 


O 00 On 


OS 


o 


CN 




lO "^ -^ 


LO r^ SO 


CN 


lO 


CN 


t^ 


ooo 


OOO 


»o 


o 


00 


^ 


CN CN LO 


T-t 


o 


oo 


(~^ 


On O^ sO 


t^ t:^ VO 


CO 


T— 1 


OS 


(""^ 
















T-H CN CO 


t^ T-l lO 


1—1 


00 




CO 


T—i 




1—1 1—1 








1— ( 



COO SO OOO 
00 OS O rJH CO CO 
ON rJH LO 00 SO t^ 



CN 

O 

LO 



Ot^ 00 
CN 



CO "^ CN 

1-1 i-l CN 



00 

VO*^ "^^ OO"^ 
i-< CO 1— t 



CN 



rf CO 00 OS "^ CO 

Tt^ O CO l:-* l>-i>. 

sO^rt^O Os Os^'-i 

co"co"co i-h"io"oO 

O "^ O CNt^ 1-1 

1—1 1—1 CN 1—1 1— I 



8 



00 
CN 



o 

CN 



SO O SO 

Os On 00 

sq^ sq^ Lo^ 

Os !>• T— I 

t^ Th so 

1-1 CN 1-1 



O 

a 









o 

12; 






o 

s 



es 



o 
> g > <u 



a a;z; H P aQ u Q 2 aW aS aS ao 

S 
o 
H 



3 



3 

C/5 



OC/2 



C/3 



CO 



3 

C/2 



same costs of schools as in 
the case of Column 1 but 
with state aid according to 
the plan submitted in Chap- 
ter X. The Columns, 3a 
and 3b of Table 55 deal with 
the reorganized school sys- 
tem under the revised plan 
of state aid as herein pro- 
posed. Colimm 3a shows 
the tax-rate for expenses in 
each district while Column 
3b shows the total tax-rate 
including that for outlays 
and debt service for the first 
year of the operation of the 
new schools. The difference 
between the two columns 
shows the amount of tax 
that it would be necessary 
to levy for the first year in 
order to meet the building 
and vehicle outlay. Ordi- 
narily this amount should 
gradually grow less during 
a twenty year period. This 
difference between the two 
colimins is shown in the last 
colimm. 

Many of these tax-rates 
shown in Column 2, Table 
55, would have been lower 
had it not been for the fact 
that deductions were made 
because of small attended 
schools. The Survey did 
not attempt to deduct for 



191 



teachers of low qualifications or to add for teachers of high quali- 
fications. This feature of deductions in the plan of state aid is 



Table 55. — Comparison of Tax-Rates in Community Districts: (1) With 
Schools as Now Organized and Present Aid; (2) With Schools as 
Organized and Proposed Revised Aid; (3) With Reorganized Com- 
munity Schools and Proposed Revised State Aid; (a) Current Ex- 
penses Only; (b) Current Expenses, New BmLDiNGS, Transportation 
Equipment and (4) Differences Between 3a and 3b 





1 


2 


3 


4 




(a) 


(b) 


Delaware County 

Supervisory District No. 1 
Sidney Center 


■ 

$3.81 
11.10 

8.78 

6.50 
4.70 

9.54 

6.58 
5.71 

4.04 
6.16 

7.72 

7.01 
5.70 
8.06 
5.30 

9.00 
4.85 
7.62 

8.20 
6.45 
8.35 

4.01 
6.92 
5.49 
6.05 


$4.57 
6.60 
6.60 

5.42 

5.78 

7.10 
6.80 
5.12 

5.66 
6.84 
6.15 

6.04 
5.05 
5.68 
5.13 

3.87 
3.99 
6.74 

4.00 
3.87 
3.89 

4.10 
5.63 
5.45 
5.55 


$4.64 
5.17 

5.38 

5.62 
5.51 

6.02 
6.95 
5.70 

7.36 
5.80 
7.42 

7.42 
5.84 
6.50 

5.72 

6.21 
6.14 
6.57 

5.95 
5.86 

5.37 

6.86 
6.42 
6.18 
5.90 


$5.40 
7.43 
6.59 

6.88 
6.67 

7.98 
7.51 
6.84 

7.67 
6.40 
7.79 

8.10 
6.24 
7.30 
6.40 

7.27 
7.83 
7.01 

6.79 
6.67 
5.94 

7.49 
6.94 
6.93 
6.65 


$0.46 


Mason ville 


2.26 


Tompkins 


1.21 


Supervisory District No. 2 

Colchester 


1.26 


Hancock 


1.16 


Supervisory District No. 3 

Delhi 


1.96 


Walton 


.56 


Hamden 


1.14 


Supervisory District No. 5 

Franklin 


.31 


Davenport 


.60 


Meredith 


.37 


Supervisory District No. 6 

Stamford 


.68 


Harpersfield 


.40 


Kortright 


.80 


Bovina 


.68 


Tompkins County 

Supervisory District No. 1 
Newfield 


1.06 


Enfield 


1.69 


Ulysses 


.44 


Supervisory District No. 3 
Danby 


.84 


Caroline 


.81 


Dryden 


.57 


Monroe County 

Supervisory District No. 1 
Henrietta 


.63 


Supervisory District No. 2 
Mendon 


.52 


Supervisory District No. 3 

Parma 


.75 


Supervisory District No. 4 

Ogden 


.75 







192 



well illustrated by this one example. The following table, Table 
56, shows the amounts that were deducted from the various dis- 
tricts as well as the tax-rates that might have been levied had their 



Table 56. — Comparison of the Reorganized Community Districts on the 
Basis of (1) Deduction for Low Attendance, (2) Tax-Rate Without 
This Deduction, (3) Tax-Rates With This Deduction, (4) Differences 
Between Tax-Rates (3) and (4) 



Districts 



Delaware County 

Supervisory District No. 1 

Sidney Center 

Masonville 

Tompkins 

Supervisory District No. 2 

Colchester 

Hancock 

Supervisory District No. 3 

Delhi 

Walton 

Hamden 

Supervisory District No. 4 

Franklin 

Davenport 

Meredith ^. 

Supervisory District No. 5 

Stamford 

Harpersfield 

Kortright 

Bovina 

Tompkins County 

Supervisory District No. 1 

Newfield 

Enfield 

Ulysses 

Supervisory District No. 2 

Danby 

Caroline 

Dryden 

Monroe County 

Supervisory District No. 1 

Henrietta 

Supervisory District No. 2 

Mendon 

Supervisory District No. 3 

Parma 

Supervisory District No. 4 

Ogden 



1 


2 


3 


$1,380 
6^140 


3.86 
4.04 
4.76 


4.57 
6.60 
6.60 


8,730 
7,440 


4.30 
5.02 


5.43 

5.78 


11,600 
1,160 
2,570 


4.70 
6.65 
4.06 


7.10 
6.80 
5.12 


2,800 
3,320 
3,540 


5.04 

5.58 
4.50 


5.66 
6.84 
6.15 


1,575 

1,700 
7,500 
4,240 


5.62 
4.62 
4.05 
3.66 


6.04 
5.05 
5.68 
5.13 


1,200 

1,815 

600 


3.62 
3.23 
6.74 


3.87 
3.99 
6.74 


2,630 

835 

1,900 


4.20 
3.70 
3.61 


4.80 

3.87 
3.89 


240 


4.05 


4.10 


1,135 


5.54 


5.63 




5.45 


5.45 


7,450 


5.44 


5.55 



.71 
2.56 
1.84 

1.13 
.76 

2.40 

.15 

1.06 

.62 
1.26 
1.65 

.42 

.43 

1.63 

1.47 



.25 
.76 



.60 
.17 

.28 



.05 
.09 

.11 



13 



193 



schools been organized on an efficient basis. The differences be- 
tween the tax-rates are given in the fourth column. 

This table proves that the revised plan of state aid proposed 
herein makes it possible for the rural school districts throughout the 
State to maintain efficient schools upon the levying of a reasonable 
tax-rate, the same being true for urban districts as well. On the 
other hand, the amount of proposed state aid is not so great as to 
give a local district any feeling that it can conduct its schools 
largely upon state money, because while there are no high tax- 
rates, there are at the same time no low tax-rates. All the tax- 
rates in this table are near or slightly above the probable median. 
This is entirely right in view of the fact that new systems of schools 
are being installed and that initial expenses must be met. 

It is beUeved that this is a very satisfactory situation for the 
schools of any state. The State under such circumstances as these 
would not act, on the one hand, as an almoner for districts of little 
wealth or of little interest in schools by giving them too much, but, 
on the contrary, would help many districts to exert their best efforts 
toward maintaining, by the levying of a reasonable tax, schools 
equal in efficiency to any other school in the State. Such a system 
of state financing of schools should be full of significance for the 
future happiness and welfare of any state because it develops a 
higher scale of intelligence among its future citizens. 

The desirability of the establishment of a system of aid such as 
this seems to be warranted by the facts presented in this chapter. 
The question that remains is whether the central government can 
afford to grant the aid required. The State's abiHty to perform 
this function will be discussed in full in the next chapter. Chapter 
XIV. 



194 



CHAPTER XIV 
THE PRACTICABILITY OF THE PLAN 

IN THE chapters which have preceded the following essential 
points bearing upon central or state support of local schools 
have been established: ^ 

1. That there is great variation in the ability of all classes of dis- 
tricts, common school, union free, villages and cities to support 
schools as revealed by their equalized valuations per teacher. 

2. That there are great differences in the efforts made by these 
districts to support schools as revealed by their equalized tax-rates. 

3. That some conamon school and union free school districts have 
so little taxable property that it is impossible for them to support 
efficient schools without large amounts of state aid. 

4. That the present system of state aid does not give sufficient 
funds to enable the low-valuation districts to support efficient 
schools upon a reasonable tax. 

5. That the present system of General Aid does not do as much 
in proportion to their needs for the lowest valuation one-teacher 
districts as for the higher- valuation districts. 

6. That the present system of General Aid to union free school 
districts, villages and cities totally disregards the relative ability of 
school districts to support schools. 

7. That the present system of General Aid to all classes of dis- 
tricts totally disregards the efforts which districts make to support 
schools. 

8. That there are a number of states having systems of General 
Aid which take into account either the ability of the districts to 
support schools or the effort they make, but that there are few 
states which take both of these factors into account. 

9. That practically all plans for apportionment of General Aid 

^ See Chapter VII for summary of findings relative to local finances. 

195 



do not respond either quickly or precisely to changes in either of 
these factors. 

10. That it is possible to create a plan which will take into 
account both of these factors and which will respond promptly and 
accurately to alterations either in abihty to support schools or in 
effort to support efficient schools as shown by valuations and tax- 
rates. 

11. That such a plan may be outlined in sufficiently simple form 
to make it practicable. 

12. That the method involved in such a plan may be used in 
connection with varying standards and that these may be adjusted 
to varying educational and economic conditions. 

13. That certain forms of Special Aid should be abandoned 
because while at the beginning they served as a reward for meritori- 
ous action out of the ordinary, the practice has since become com- 
mon throughout the State. Other forms of Special Aid have been 
retained because they still accomplish this purpose. 

14. That certain new forms of Special Aid should be adopted in 
order to encourage new undertakings. Among those applicable to 
rural schools are Special Aid (a) for the erection of new buildings, 
(b) for the purchase of vehicles for transportation purposes, (c) for 
payment of expenses for transportation, (d) for abandonment of 
certain school buildings now used, and (e) for employment of addi- 
tional high school teachers. 

15. That an efficient rural school system for the State of New 
York will require a 24 percent increase in expenses due to expansion 
in scope and increased efficiency in personnel, course of study, 
methods of teaching and supplies and equipment. 

16. That rural communities without certain inducements from 
the State will not consent to the reorganization of their schools; and 
that it is to the interest of the State that it offer such inducements. 

17. That the costs of reorganized schools conducted on a plan of 
efficiency comparable to that upon which city schools are now con- 
ducted, can be borne by the rural schools as easily as city schools 
now bear their burdens when assisted by the proposed plan of state 
aid; and this can be done without large increases in the local tax- 
rates. 

196 



Ability of State to Adopt Plan 

It remains now to consider whether the central or state treasury 
should bear such a proportion of the total expenses of local schools 
as is required by the recommendations of the author. In order to 
answer this question estimates have been carefully made of the 
appropriations that would be required in order to comply with the 
terms outlined under the various plans proposed in Chapters X and 
XI. These estimates are based upon data furnished in Chapters 
V, VI and XIII and by the State Department of Education. These 
estimates for the first year of the operation of the new plan are as 
follows: 

(A) General Aid (based on data for 1920) 

1. Required for Form I. 

Towns $11,302,410 

Villages 1,071,631 

Cities 4,568,318 

Total $16,942,359 

2. Additional amount required for Form II. 

Villages $35,871 

Cities 601,592 

Total 637,463 

3. Additional amount required for Form III 12,989,434 

4. Total amount required Form II (sum of 1 and 2) 17,579,822 

5. Total amount required Form III (sum of 1 and 3) 29,931,793 

6. Total amount required Form IV (sum of 1, 2 and 

3) 30,569,256 

(B) Special Aid 

Home economic teachers $593,143 

Teachers of physical training 328,339 

Supervisory quota 142,860 

High school teachers 400,000 

Transportation 310,000 

Normal school graduates in rural 

schools 50,000 

Abandoned buildings 75,000 

Total 1,899,342 

(C) Total General Aid for Form IV and Special Aid 

combined 32,468,598 

It was assumed in making these calculations for Form I that the 
median equalized tax-rate in the towns under the reorganized plan 
would be five and one-half mills, and that the valuations were the 

197 



same as the combined distribution of valuations in union free and 
common school districts as given in Chapter V. Each village under 
a superintendent and city was worked out separately according to 
the tax-rates and valuations as reported for the year 1920. The 
same holds true for villages and cities in the estimation of the addi- 
tional amount required for Form II. 

It will be observed from a study of these figures that an appro- 
priation of approximately $20,000,000 (amount of General Aid re- 
quired for Form II plus the amount required for all forms of Special 
Aid) will be sufficient in the State of New York at the present time 
to suit the requirements of the plan of state aid recommended in 
this study without deductions for schools of low attendance or 
other reasons. These deductions it is believed will be sufficient to 
off-set, for a period of years, any increase in General Aid due to 
increased costs of local schools. Above this amount of $20,000,000 
the State may add General Aid in any amount it pleases provided 
it is raised and distributed on a basis of equalized valuations without 
doing violence to the principles of state aid recommended in this 
report. The above figures include the distribution of the proceeds 
of the State one mill tax now levied for schools. (Additional aid 
required for Form III and IV.) 

The consideration of whether New York can afford to grant these 
amounts of central support can be approached from only two points 
of view, since obviously the present tax system of the State cannot 
be brought into a study limited to the finances of the schools — (1) 
the present scale of expenditures, and (2) a comparison with ex- 
penditures and wealth of other states. 

The appropriation for common schools, which covers the district 
and teacher quotas, was in 1921, $32,900,000, and in 1922, $35,065,- 
000, including a deficiency for the preceding year. Thus it is seen 
that the plan recommended here will cost no more than the present 
appropriation, and so there can be no doubt of the ability of the 
State to make the payments required by the plan recommended. 

This same conclusion is supported by the data given in Chapter 
II relative to the social and economic conditions. The State of 
New York is not paying excessive amounts for education as com- 
pared with her wealth and the income of her citizens, nor is the appro- 

198 



priation coming from the central treasury excessive as compared with 
the appropriations made by other states, since $20,000,000 is ap- 
proximately 20 percent of the total expenses and 17 percent of the 
total expenditures (see Chapter II). Thus from both points of view 
the financial ability of the State to adopt the plan is proved. 

General Observations 

It seems desirable to make a few general observations upon the 
plan of central support herein recommended before bringing the 
study to a close. 

1. It was said in Chapter VIII in treating the theory of central 
school support that the proportion of total support which should 
come from the central treasury in any state depends upon the condi- 
tions in that state, particularly as regards differences in ability to 
support schools and differences in conceptions as to what constitutes 
a good school as revealed by the effort made as expressed in terms of 
the tax-rate. The methods of study followed in previous chapters 
have given answer to this question for the State of New York. 
Approximately one-fifth of the total expenses or one-sixth of the 
total expenditures, $20,000,000, may be taken for the time being 
as valid standards. 

2. Inasmuch as the formula recommended can be computed with 
different values assigned to the various factors, and, inasmuch as the 
costs of schools, the valuations of property and tax-rates will in the 
ordinary course of events change from time to time it is, therefore, 
recommended that in the event a law is passed adopting this plan 
the general principles underlying it be enacted and that it be left 
to the State Department of Education annually or periodically to 
determine the standards in accordance with the principles. 

3. Among the possible modifications is the substitution in the 
formula of the total local tax-rate instead of the tax-rate for expenses 
of schools. It would seem that there would be little gain and much 
loss by this plan. There would be little gain by reason of the fact 
that the equalized tax-rates in towns and cities differ very Httle 
from each other and also by reason of the further fact that the pro- 
portion which the school tax is of the total tax varies only in small 
amounts in cities, villages and rural districts when they are taken 

199 



as groups.^ The loss that would come from such a plan would be 
the tendency to subject the determination of the school tax to con- 
siderations lying outside of purely school matters in much the same 
way as is now the case in those cities in the State in which the school 
board gets money from the city council. Both the experience of school 
administrators generally throughout the country and the results of 
studies that have been made in this field show that those school 
systems thus subjected to external control are not so efficient, as a 
class, as those in districts which are independent of municipal action. 

4. The adoption of such a plan as that recommended in this study 
for the State of New York does not involve the recognition of an 
entirely new principle as would be the case in many states of the 
Union. The system of state aid for highways in this State is very 
similar to the plan proposed herein. While the highway law bases 
its valuations upon the assessed values rather than upon the equal- 
ized valuations, and in that respect is inferior to the plan recom- 
mended herein, nevertheless it takes into account in its distribution 
of aid the amount of wealth for each unit of highway and the efforts 
which the towns make as measured by the number of mills of tax 
levied. Corresponding features in the plan recommended herein 
are the measurement of the ability of the school districts to support 
schools in terms of equalized valuation per teacher and the effort 
which districts make to have good schools as measured by the 
equalized tax-rate. 

The system of state aid for highways is like the plan for state aid 
recommended herein for schools in another important respect. 
Both of them start with the conditions in the local community and 
adjust their aid to those conditions. In ,the system of General Aid 
for schools now in use in the State of New York it is not necessary 
for the State Department of Education to know anything (except in 
the case of the rural school districts having one teacher and assessed 

^ The percent that school taxes are of total taxes in Delaware, Monroe and 
Tompkins counties was, in 1919, 36 percent, 33 percent and 30 percent respec- 
tively. In 29 cities in the same year the percents varied from 17 to 45, the 
median being 34.6 percent. The tax-rate for all purposes in cities ranged from 
13 to 61 mills, the median being 33 mills. In Delaware, Monroe and Tompkins 
counties the median rate for all purposes was 33, 17 and 32.5 mills respectively. 
(Based on a study of the tax-rates as printed in the Jleport of the State Tax 
Commission, 1919.) 

;20o 



valuation less than 100,000) about conditions in the local communi- 
ties provided the minimum standards are met; and in the case of 
those districts no inquiry is made as to the amount of effort they 
may make to support a good school. Naturally, the tendency 
exists in many districts to add as little as possible through local tax 
and to depend less and less upon themselves. In contrast with this 
situation in the schools is that in highways where the tendency is to 
support them more liberally because it is known that each additional 
effort made by the local community is met with increased aid from 
the State. The favor with which this feature of the State Highway 
law is regarded in New York should provide favorable conditions for 
the adoption of a similar method for the apportionment of the gen- 
eral state school appropriation. 



20I 





Average 
daily 
atten- 
dance 




Number 

of 
teachers 


CS^^T-lrHr-li-l^»-l*-H^^ 


Capi- 
tal 

out- 
lay 


00 CN • • • • 

<N <N • • • • 


^1 


to • •'H 

tH • • 

4^ 


Total 
expenses 
of main- 
taining 

school 


vO^OOiOt^OfCiO'^tO'-i'^ 
^^On VO O O Tf vO t^ t^ O t^ O 




loo . lo in OMO po lo Tt* »o »o 


il 

3 bO 


4^ 


Cost of 
mainte- 
nance 


r>. lO >^OvfO rfioOOv 


d 
.2 

o 


Other 
expense 

of 
opera- 
tion 


vO • -^ fO <N fO tH ro CN OS »H . 


Cost 

of 

fuel 


oO'^OfS'*^o»OTt<-r^ao 

On fO (N fO rj^ rt rt* (N (N tH ro 


Wages of 

janitor 

and other 

employes 


OOO -mON -OfTiro -ro " 
4/5= 


d 
o 

d 

tn 

d 

1— 1 


Other ex- 
penses of 
instruc- 
tion 


pTiOMOXcst^xoOi^oces 

ro ^ ^ ,H ^^^^^ 
4^ 


Salaries 

of 
teachers 


r-CNvOOOvOOOO-^VOOOrt 
00'-i'^lOt^fO'^-*0000Tj<Ov 
rO O V0>0»n0i0^0«0v0i0 

4% 




2 
is 

a 


Delaware County 

First Supervisory District 

Masonville No. 1 

•• 2 

" 4 

" 5 

" 6 

" 8 

" 9 

" 11 

" 12 

" 13 

" 14 

" 15 



Hi 

< 

Q 

w 
o 
< 

> 
< 



Oh 
< 

U 

w 

Oh 



O 
OS 



CO 



o 

u 
iz; 
< 

w 

H 
H 



< 
W 
>^ 

w 
o 

CO 

O 

(In 
H 

iz; 
w 



H 

;z; 

w 

X 



00 

to 





13 >. 


$22.23 
13.93 




$6.76 
2.43 


Total 
expenses 
of main- 
taining 
school 


ioiOTtii-icNrrioooO(>^iofocs 

CN d r-' -^ r^ d 0C3 vd (Tsi fO rn' o^ 
t^fOCNOv»0'*'!tTtoOOvt^CN 




lOPC ••^00 0»0 '-iiOt-OO 
vOrJ< •t^fOO^'^OOiOiOtOO 
O-h' ' ' • ^ ' ' ' ' ^ 


>. CO 

11 

X! CJ 


Ov O -OfNO 00 O OOfO o o 

q q • q o^ q X q 00 rt q q 
6©= 


Cost of 
mainte- 
nance 


$5.78 
3.78 

5.85 

2.23 

69.30 

.44 

1.14 

.90 


d 

.2 

O 


Other ex- 
penses of 
operation 


vO -OOOvOOOOOvfNOOO • 
«vj • VO OJ ^ CO O ■>-* CN CM »H • 




v0'*0'*'^0t^^f0000 

CN ^ lo .rH VO ^^ q 00 1^_ q OS q 
■^ " CN fo CN rh CO (N es (T) ^' vd 

4^ '— t 




OOfO --^ov •rt't^fO -O • 


d 

_o 
'■+J 
u 

d 

d 


Other ex- 
penses of 
instruction 


f^OsOt^'—iOfNPOT-ifOOO 
rJ<CNOiOOst-;VOvO— iTt^OO-* 
-rt* ^ CN (N * »-l ' ' ' cs th' {N 
4^ 


Salaries 

of 
teachers 


rJHfOO'>-iiOOfOOO'-iOO 
rO^-^t^CNOiOOOt^OOOO 

d t-' OO' OS rj5 CO t-h' d Vo' (r> T)5 « 

VO00»OI>>'*VO'<:tlTflt^WVO^ 

4)9= <N ^ 




i5 


Delaware County 

First Supervisory District 

Masonville No. 1 

" 2 

" 4 

•' 5 

" 6 

" 8 

" 9 

•' 11 

" 12 

" 13 

" 14 

" 15 



203 



s 

< 
w 

o 

t/i 
H 
U 

H 

C/3 



O 
O 

w 

u 

o 

o 

u 



H 
(/) 

o 
U 

>-? 

o 
H 

o 

8 

W 



OS 

s 

pq 

H 







8- 


•Xt^t^Ttl^t^vOt^OO 

' d d d cs ^* d d d d 


II 

II 


lO t>- • •«-< 00 t>; t^^ CN '-J »0 Tt* 00 

^(^ • r^ y^ O r^ CN ^* ^* ^ d 
4^ 


O rt 




.2 

1 


Other 

expenses of 

operation 


d 'ddddddd^d " 


6- 


00 THTti u^q q esq cn cn »>. vo 
tod'^po>opooo(r)ro<N'^ 


M O 
^.1 


$1.1 
1.1 

0.8 
1.3 

3.1 
0.4 

0.4 


CO 


Other 
expenses of 
instruction 


■^ d d CN ^ tH tH ^ *H CN <N ^' 


•S2 

l-s 


csOrOVOOOOsOfSiOiOOa 
r<5 t^" "^ rh Th rj5 lo* lO* (N a ^h ^' 

oo'OCN«oo'«*ooxov«ova» 




-t-> 

Vh 
CO 

s 


'j-i 


CN 


-^ 


lA- 


VC 


00 Os '-I Cv 


f^. 




»o 



w 

H 

X 

H 
P 

M 

C 



5S 









^ H 
O ^ 



8 

H 



o 



^^ 

O w 
< P 

> 

Q 

W 

C/3 
W 

m 



S 

Hi 

pq 

5^ 



i 

73 




a 


OvfN»o^T^oocN«ooa>0'-i 

^t>.fO^CNeNCS'!-(fSfC^0'C 

4^ 




00 


Ost^vot^v0f*:)0-^os'«*fst-- 

-^OOOOXOOOO-^t^OO 
fNlOT-(f<5r«0CSCN«NCN<NrCfO 


.2 


n 


t^ 


iO»Ht-.\OrjHOviOTtiiOTt<00Ov 
fNO»O'^f0t^00'^Ov«NOf0 

oo_^ fo <N Os^ 00^ q fO lO lO^ o\^ ■^ es 

O 0\ "^'" TiT of 00* tjJ' rf rH oT ^f J>r 


^1 


o 


vOO*HOOOavOrJ<(NiOvOO 

ooot>-<N"«tooocs«oy5t^aN 

'^'^-*^.^''^*^.^*^ POtOO '-I 
00* lo" CN '^ vo* d^ t^ fN T^ ■rf^ rjJ^ NO* 
t>-vO'^fOfO00>Ot^'-ivOTt<PO 
4^ 


.1 
^1 


»o 


OOOOrCOOfO-'tOOt^iC 
rOiO»OT-tcNioi>.ONOOv»Ht^ 

CS^O^d^THav0^fOOO^^^ 


^1 


■^ 


CSOv'^OOOOvOrt«fSiOOvO 
^»Ot>»CS'^00O«N»OVOt>-O( 

ov^ •rH t^^ VO 00^ t^_^ q oj^ eo u^ q »-j^ 

vo to cvj* -^ vo d^ ^** CN -^ "«d^ TfJ' vo* 

iOvO'^PO<^OOiOt^*HVOTt<PO 


Rate of 
equaliza- 
tion 




:§§:§:§ :§§§^§§§^ 


Tax-rate 

per 
thousand 


fO 


OCSOOiOO-'tiOiOO'^O 

t^_ ■^^ q q ro q "ph vo q q ov ov 

so fN to <N Tj5 lo t4 a f/> lO Ov* to* 


^.2 

II 


<N 


t^OtOtoOPOOtocsOtoO 
Oiot^esto*ocN<NOOt^»o 

CS* oT Ov* to* vo ^* O* PC* vo* oT d^ vo* 
t^ CN th th rH c<5 <N ro CN fN »-l 








: 

.2 

■M 

.2 
Q 










■Li 1 ... J 

+J ........... . 






-t-» 


Delaware County 
First Supervisory Dis 
Masonville No. 1 
" 2 

" 5 

" 11 
.. 12 
" 13 
•• 14 
" 15 



204 





IB^OX 


CO Tffvj OvvO 

CN t^ »-l 10 


CO 10 vO ^ 


rf Ov«NiO-H . . 


. . . . vo r^ 


1,008 
1.28 


1 


2 'ON 9UXBAV 


•■^00 "tlO 








CNoo 














T 'ON ^iioj^ns 


f/jio vo "^ 


10 CO »H ▼-< ^ 


^^ .^^ . . 


. . . .«y) • 


to 

c^^ CO CN 

^^ c<^ 


1 -ojsi aouajAVBq -^s 


COOOCO^ • 








IOCS 
10 














t -OM o§3s:jo 




s- » 


S"*^^ : : 












. 


Z -OM 033MSO 


Oioin • • 








(Mco q 














T -ojsE otjb:)uo 


•{NWiorO 


10 (N ■^ -tH 


^ CN • 1-* • 






T -OK Jatni^ijaH 


t^ t^ t^ CN ^ 








•^^0 »0 














X -O^I 9U99Jf) 


^OvOOvO • 








Tt^co CO 
CO-^ ^• 














I "ON spa 


•^Tj^OOO 


OMOCN-^ • 






CN 

OrJ< so 

^^ CO* 










e -o^ uo^uiiO 




CO 












X •02v[ Bnt)nB;nBq3 


•^OOtJ^On 


Tt^CO-^CS • 


: : :-^ : : : 




CO CN 00 


e -o]^ supidraox 


•^ r<i ■^ 








10 ■^ ,-J 














2 -OM suTj^draox 


•CO to (N tH 








t^ CN CO 

CO-^ ^ 






CN 








X 'O]^ sui^idraox 


•t^00LO?S 


ro^^ -co 


■.-^-^-^ : : 




COO^ CO 
^^ CN* 


f -ojsl 90JU0p\J 


.H^vOXTt* 


CO'^T^-^CN 


^H ^^ • i-H • 







e 'oj^ aojuoj^ 


■r-l CN 


CO ^ fS ^ ^ 


-^ : : : : : : 


... .(N • 


CN C\ 00 

to 


Z -ojsi aojuoprj 


• rfiiOiO CS 


.^ -CSCO 


•CO-P-H • • 


: : : .-^ : 


r^O 00 


X "o^j aojuoj^ 


•OOCN^CS 


CM^rt^ • 


:-^ : : : : : 




a^lo so 

CO-H ^• 


9 '0^ ajBMBpQ 










»o 














5 -OM SJBMBpa 


th vO ^ CS • 








CO 














t *OJ^ ajBMBpQ 


CNthOsO 








CNl^ 00 
10 •^ ^ 














£ -O]^ 9JBMBPQ 


COOOVOCO • 








00 
00 t^ 

10 














2 -o^i ajBMEpQ 


CO cs a> -co 








CN 

OMO »o 


' < "^ 












X -oj^ ajBMBpa 










10 

CvO 
















Percent of 

total 
expenses 



.1- 0.9 

1- 1.9 

2- 2.9 

3- 3.9 


4- 4.9 

5- 5.9 

6- 6.9 

7- 7.9 

8- 8.9 


9- 9.9 
10-10.9 
11-11.9 
12-12.9 

13-13.9 

14-14.9 
15-15.9 
16-16.9 
17-17.9 
18-18.9 

19-19.9 
20-20.9 
30-30.9 


Total .... 
Rank .... 
Median 
percents 



205 



o 

g 

u 

VO 



H 
W 
H 

go 

PR > 

O P^ 



i§ 

PM n 
w 

H 
O 

H 
o 

H 

8 

w 

PL, 



NO 

w 

pq 

e2 





Ib;ox 


O-HOOOTh 

T-1 ^fSl ^ tH 


0»0f0 CN *H 


OOVO -CN 


NO • fO 

OS ' ^ 


73 
-4-> 

o 
.22 

5 


2 -ON auABAV 


.vOrJ^TtOO 


a^l/^^C • • 


: : : : 


Os^ VO 


T -ON ^iioijns 


••rHCNro "«*i 


\0 OiO Ov »-« 


^- : : 


CN^ ^ 


X 'o^ 9DU9JMBq •:>s 


Tt< lO -H CN lO 


VO -^ • • 




o*Ov 00 


X -OM oS9s;o 


<N T^irjiOOO 


:-"-" : : 




voce r* 


Z -ON OSSMSQ 


THVOlOOOrH 


• ••,-(•. 




VO 

CN 00 m 


X -oj^ oub;uo 


-^■rH 0*00 On 


fOCN -CN • 


• tH • • 




X -OM j9mHJ9H 


tH VO <0 O lO 


VO --^ -ro 


_ 


fOO OS 


X -ON au99JO 


CN CN Tfi (NNO 


CNf^ -CN • 




(Mvo VO 


X -OM 9ua 


.^T^ ^rr^ 


rf fO tH ^ CN 




OOv CO 


£ -ojsE uo^uno 


■ -aoio 


CN • • • • 




-<* 


X 'o^ BnbnB^n^qo 


f^fOOo^CN 


fOvOT-^— t • 






e -ojsi suT5idmox 


lO SO fO CN Ov 


P<5 ^ • .,-1 ^ 




CN 


Z -oj^ sui5idmox 


rfOq-rHVOVO 


lO CN 'H . • 




to 


X '0^ suT5idmox 


• rt< VO --H rt 


o*^ • • • 






f '0^ 90J[U0J\[ 


CN • tH •.-1 CN 


Ov Tf CN CN • 


:^ : : 


^^ CO- 


£ -O^ 90JUOJ\[ 


^<^ CN vOt^ 


CN-'^IO'^VO 


: : :-^ 


CO 
■^CN ID 


2 'OjNj 90JUOp\[ 


• »H tH CN CN 


fC lO '-I tH • 


i-^ : : 


t^vo CO 
CO ^• 


X 'OJSJ 90JU0p^ 


• • CN t^ O 


XVOfO-^-rH 


fO ▼-! • 'H 


VO 
OvfC »o 
ro^ ^ 


9 -O^sJ 9JBMBl9a 


CN -rH 


fO »H 1-1 • • 




fOrO O 


9 -ojsj gjBAVBpa 


lOfOOOO^ 


y-< • 1-1 tH • 


-^ : : : 


CO ^• 


t 'OJ^ 9JBMBPQ 


"^ooa-^io 


tH tH • • • 




CN ^ VO 


e -OJSI 9JBMBpa 


0\ t^ r* ro fO 


• »H • • • 


: : : : 


O CN X 

in 


Z -OJSJ 9JBMEl9a 


t^ O O CN t^ 


OS CN CO t-t '-I 


i-^ : : 


in 

Os r^ !>• 


X 'O]^ 9JBMBpa 


fOOOfOOrO 


CN "* . • . 




fO 
Ov»0 CS 




Percent of 

total 
expenses 



.1- 0.9 

1- 1.9 

2- 2.9 

3- 3.9 


4- 4.9 

5- 5.9 

6- 6.9 

7- 7.9 

8- 8.9 


9- 9.9 
10-10.9 
11-11.9 
12-12.9 


Total.... 
Rank .... 
Median 
percents 



2o6 





l^;ox 


1 t^esfst^-"^ 

poespooo'* 


rfOOCNOOiO 


^00t>.Orf 


lOfO '-^ fS »H 




1,012 
5.19 


O 

.2 
C/3 


3 -OM 9uAba\ 


.^r-^^tri 


fS On 0»r5 fS 


fS-^ • -CN 








Ov (N (N 






T -ON ^liojjns 


th cs ^ r^ 00 


fO'«^>OfOf*5 


^-t CS^ • 


:- : : : 


: : : : : : :-^ 


<NO O 

^^ NO 


T -ON 


tOCN(N^ "^ 


00 (N Thirji/j 


fC»HfO^ . 






o 

NO es lo 










T 'o^ oS9s:jo 


.^^^ ^ 


NOt^f*^ c*5 • 








O 
NOON o 














2; -o^i OS9AVSO 


• -nOWOn 


t^ vO »H r-l ^ 








00 














T 'ON op^^uQ 


. -^ -ro 


csfo '^t^'fo 


fO iM CS ^ tH 
















T -ON 
j9mi:5lJ9H 


rpH .^f<5x^ 


t^t^io>ot>» 








NO 

Tt^oo 00 














I -OM 9U99JO 


(N CSfNiOON 










NO 
^tH NO 


















T 'ON spa 


^ ••»H T*<ro 


iOt>> On»0 • 








NO 

OOn 00 














e -oj^ iio;un3 


T-HCN • -CS 


l/5^,14^VO 








lO 














T -ON 


• "^xw 


t>. T}< VO r-H <N 


tH • »H <-( • 






fOOO «N 










e ON 
suij^draox 


es^T-ivoo 


lO^ONTt^T^ 








OO o 














Z -ON 
sui^idraox 


•TH -^tH 


wt^ 00 •* cs 








ooio r- 














T -ON 
suT^idraox 


rO ^ . .lo 


Mr**ONTt<»H 






















t 'O^ 90JUOJ^ 


••.H •fOfO 


NO ^t^ NOfO 








Tt NO 00 














£■ '0^ 90JUOJ/^ 


: : :^^ 


-^rONOiOfO 


«Nfr)T-(fo • 


f<5 CS • • • 


. tH ■ • • ... 


tO^ vO 


2 -O^ 90iU0J\[ 


• • • r^ 1-H 


t^ON-^t^fO 


CN • ^-1 • • 


: :-" :-" 




rOM vO 


\ 'O^ 90JU0J^ 


•-^ -CSTf 


•t^vOt^Tt* 


fO -CSt^ • 




^^ . . . . ... 


00t-» 00 


9 -OJS^ gjBAVBpQ 


»H -fOt^ O 


Wt^PO CN T-t 


:-^ : : : 


: : :-" : 






9 -O^sl 9JBAVEl9a 


»o -CSnOOn 


iDr* tH CN ^ 








0<N t^ 


"^ 


'^ 










^ -O]^ 9JBMBPQ 


t>. 'CO IOCS 

1-H 


Ti^OS^ -^ 








CNIO On 


' 












e-OJS[9JBAVBpa 


^^'-^OnO 


'^J^t^irj . . 


• • tH -1-1 






Ot^ cs 










^•0Js[9iBMBpa 


t^ CN • CS ■^ 


VOOOONOO 


•^ '-I -cs • 






NO 


X -O^ 9JBMBPQ 


• -^fSNONO 


t^t^vo -^ 








00 


'^ 














Percent of 

total 
expenses 



.1- .99 

1- 1.99 

2- 2.99 

3- 3.99 


4- 4.99 

5- 5.99 

6- 6.99 

7- 7.99 

8- 8.99 


9- 9.99 
10-10.99 
11-11.99 
12-12.99 
13-13.99 


14-14.99 
15-15.99 
16-16.99 
17-17.99 
18-18.99 


19-19.99 
20-20.99 
21-21.99 
22-22.99 
23-23.99 

24-24.99 
25-25.99 
26-26.99 


Total .... 
Rank .... 
Median 
percents 



207 





imox 


O* 00 «* rf* tN. 

NO ONfCt^lO 




csavOOOuo 


t^a»oo»o 
■.-t cs cs cs 


•«# 








^ 


999 
1.25 


CO 

a 

b 

i 
> 

u 
Q 
75 


2 -OM auABAV 


fs ONVOf*^ fs 


th ^ CN »H . 


-^ : : : : 


: : : : : : : 






, 


oot^ t^ 


T -ON ^liojjns 


t>.»r5 cNiO • 


«S CSCN CN • 


^^ ,-(r*5 


cs cs 'fH ^ »-l 


^H • 








»o 

^ On t^ 


X -OM 9DU3jMBq -r^s 




PO CN^'HfO 


^^ 


cs 


^^fO • • 










•>* 
lOOO NO 

IT) 


T -OM oS9s:>o 


00On"«*'<^^ 


: : : : : 








: : : : : 










lO 

NONO lO 

CN 


2 -OJ^ OS9MSO 


(ncsfocs • 


. . . ,H • 


1^ > 






^CSt^ONOO 










^^a 


T -O^ OUB^UQ 


t^oouocsio 


• tH • • 1-H 


• : 






»HCS 


; 












o 

CNPO CN 


T -OM J9UIT5IJ3H 




CS(N^ • • 


; : 
























ro NO 


T -O^ 9U39JO 


NOOtOrJ<fO 


CSiH .»H • 


- : 




y-i 


















o 


T -ON spa 


-<!*< o >o lO -* 


Tji -rfifN^ 


tH cs 


•r-l»H 


















oo o 


e -o^ uo:^uTi3 


>O"*f0f0iO 


^fOCS CS»H 




.^^ 








tH 












o 

«N^ CN 


T -o^ BnbHB^nBqo 




CS»H .cs*^ 














^CN 










PO 


£ -o^i SUTSldlUOX 


t^oot-io • 


lOPOr-t • • 








•^ TH(NTficsir 


ft 








o 

CNOO 00 


2 -OM suTJidulOx 


rOfONOJ>CS 


ro • • -CS 




^H 




















I -o^ su^dmox 


lO-r^TfilOCS 


tH cs CS • • 










•CN • • 












to 

Tt<«^ CN 


f' -O^ 90JUOp\[ 


On 0»>0 tJ* CO 


^ cs cs »H • 










. ^cOfNCS 












.^VO NO 


£ -oj^ aojuop^ 




cs^ • • ^ 




«H 








• -iHCS 


ft 








^cs O 
to 


Z 'o^ aojuoj^ 




CS»HCS • • 


tH • T-l 






THrot^ CN 


^ 








o 

t^ PO to 
PO^ ^• 


I -ojsj aojuop^ 


'^esOvr<5NO 


Tt< cs '^ • 


fOiH »H*H T- 




y-* 












_ 


to 

OnCS cs 
PO(N ^ 


9 -O^ 9JBMBPQ 


loio ^fO es 


• •»-( • *H T-4 


»H • 












' ' 












PO 


S -ON ajBMBpa 


CS t>» t>» CS ^H 


:-^ : : : 


; ; 












• : 












§■" ^ 


^ -oj^ ajEMBpa 




-^ : i-" : 


tH • 










CN • 












00- » 
to 


£ -O^ ajBMBpQ 


OfO t^ (N CS 


r-lPO •T-t • 




»H *-l 








• y-i' 












p<0 

CNPO CS 

to 


2 •OJS[ ajBAVBpQ 


O 00 On ■rt 00 


• »^ »H • »-l 




tH iH 


<-j 


^CSCSCS 










cs 
OnO t- 


I -O^*^ 9JBMBPQ 


CNl^ t^ (N ^ 

r-i T-l 


CS^*Hl-l»H 




; ; 


; 


cs '^H • 










o 

XOn t>. 




Percent of 

total 
expenses 



.1- 0.9 

1- 1.9 

2- 2.9 

3- 3.9 


OS On On On On 
T^iO vot>^od 

TtlONOt^OO 


O 
O 

! 
0^ 


OvO 


O 
C^ 

1 

CN 

ft 


O 
PT 

I 


o 

I 


o 
o 
1 


o 

i 

CN 


ao 

77 

too 

CN PO 


o 
o 

p^ 


o 


o 
o 


o 


On 
O^ 

»o 

J, 


Total 

Rank .... 
Median 
percents 



2o8 



O 

O 

5 

o 

o 
U 

00 



tn 

H 

O rt 
pq CN 

H M 



12; 

o 
H 

o 

H 

8 

w 

PL, 



VO 

w 

Hi 

pq 





l^ox 


f5 00 00 CM r- 
^ CN CN ^ 


NOCS»HCS(N 


T-<fO 




1,008 
1.29 


to 

u 

1 

1 
5 


Z -OM 9u^BAV 


^t^ 00 • CN • • 


- : 








ON« o 

fo ^• 


T -ON ^lojgns 


rJ<t-.iOOv"* 


fO • 












<N •^ NO 


X -o^ aDU9jA\Bq •;§ 


OOfOOO w»o 


iOOn 












NOfo o 


I -OM oSas^o 


rJiNOuO PCfO 


(N 


1-4 




1-1 »H 


NOt- 8 


3 -o^ oSaMSQ 


(N ■r-l 






- 






I -0^ oub;uo 


t^ rt (N !>. ^ 

1-H 


CS 










1-4 


o 


I -OM j9rai5ijaH 


CSt^OOlO C>>1 














NO 


T -O^ 9U99JO 


fJNONOO • 














On 
lO NO lO 


T 'ON 3pa 


1-1 


CS 1-1 












-^lO lO 


e -OM uo;uii3 


CO"«^CSO<N 


CSfO 












fS On t^ 


X 'o^ BnbnB:jnBH3 


1-1 


t^ro 












O 
fSO On 


e -ojsi sui^tdraox 


-^(NOONOCS 
1-1 1—1 


IOCS 




iH 


.^ 


CN 

00 On ^^ 


3 -oj^ sui^idmox 


ONOesfOcs • • 

1-1 1-1 • • 












O 
NOiO On 


X 'ojsE supidraox 


0^0(N^ 


lH 1—1 












-F-HNO On 
re 


f- "OlsJ 90JU0]^ 


lOfCt^NONO 


1— i 












PC 


£ '0^ 90JUOp\[ 


"^fSNOOs 


00 (N 














■ ^ -OM 90JU0]^ 


'-^OOrft^co 


00 fJ 












On 


X 'O^ 90JU0J\[ 


cs '!*x<r>NO 


lO»H 












cs 

acs -^ 


9 -O^ 9JBMBpa 


^t-POro • • • 
(N ^ • • • 












00 


5 -OJsE 9JBMBI9a 


iOf<:>oocN^ 


^ • 














t 'O^ 9JBMBI9a 


00<N NO 00 • 
1-1 CN 


• tH 


T-( 






1-1 
VOPO fO 


e -OKL 9JBMBI9a 


lo ooio T-H'rt . . 

fO • • 












OCS lO 


Z; -OJ^ 9JBMBI9a 


lO tCfC rt<i-i 
1-1 «N 


:^ 












Oncs cs 


X -ojsi ajBMBpQ 


NOOt^CSCN 


•fO 












Ot^ On 




Percent of 

total 
expenses 



.1- 0.9 

1- 1.9 

2- 2.9 

3- 3.9 


ONO^O 
Tf art 

iJ,5 


o 
o 
1 


a 


O 

o 

Cs 
1 

li- 
es 


o 

CO 




Total 

Rank .... 
Median 
percents 



14 



209 






O 

o 
w 

m 

52; 
o 

i 

u 



5g3 

p. s 

o 

w 

l-H 

< 

in 
o 

Xfl 

W 



g 



Q 

w 



NO 

s 

H 





IB^OX 




»o n 


<^\o 

vOt>- 


t^t>.vO00Th" 
O«SOn00nO 


ON-^cOOfO 
UOIOCSCOPO 


0000 NO l^ 
CNCO i-HiH 


CO 

.•§ 

Wi 
> 

C/3 


3 -OK auABAV 




: :'^^ 


OiO-^fOCS 


't • CN <N l-H 


; : 


•*H 


T -ON ^liojgns 




^fONOlO 


»OOn CSPO ^ 


^H i-H • • • 


iH • 


; • 


T 'o^ aouajMBq '^jg 






<r-icN : 


t^ 10 1^ NO CO 


cocoes CN iH 


.Tt 


?Si-< 


I -OM oS3s:^o 








«N • 


CSfO »-t -fO 


CNCO • • • 


r^<N 


• i-t 


3 -oj^ oSaMSQ 








iH CN 


fOTf^Tj^NOPO 


^NO . . . 


rjH^ 


• »H 


T *0N op^^uQ 








•to 


10 NOfS P^ CN 




^co 


•i-H 


X -o^ jamiJijaH 








POro 


CNN© 10 NO CO 


^ittNiHiO 




cs 


•CN 


T -oj^ auaajo 








CNCS 


lOt^fOTji^-4 


10 -i-H • . 




tH 


l-H tH 


T 'ON 3pa 




»H 


^*^ 




l-H CN iH »-l *H 




; 


; • 


e -OM uot^uiiD 




tM 


10 t^ 


t^ CN^O l-H 1-1 


.^^^ : 




; 


; • 


T -o^j BnbTiB^nBqo 






CSfO ^ 


TttfO>O00PO 


^ \\ '.-^ 


^CN^CN • 


e -oj^ suT^idmox 






•to l-H 


NOiOCNOO"* 


co^ "^^ 


^CN^CN • 


Z -O^ SUT5[ClUIOX 






l-H • iH 


cot^roiOCN 


CNCO'rt fOiH 


i-H CN • • • 


I -ojsi suT^idinox 






• -cs 


•fOrJ^CNNO 


T**"* -CN • 


iH i-H • .i-H 


t 'O^I 30JU0J/y[ 






fC^C^ 


notJ<iO"^(N 


tH i-H rj< iH »-( 


* * 


f -O^I 90JU0p\[ 




-rHCSlONO 


t>.t-»iOiOCN 


CO CO »H l-H tH 


^ '.^ \ \ 


2 -oj^ aojuopv 






1-^vOPO 


fO»O00fOf0 




• iH • • • 


X -O^J SOJUOJ^ 








On On 


t^iO CN ^fO 


CN -^ • • 


. . . . ^-( 


9 'O^ SJBAVBpQ 








CSCN 


^vOPONOro 


10 CS ^CO ^ 


»-H -THCNiH 


5 -o^i ajBMBpa 








^Tt 


roNOiHrJ^cs 


cOfS -CNCS 


^CN -T-HiH 


t 'O^ SJBMEpa 








<N^ 


CNOOt^iHiH 


co^t CS -CN 


• -CNCStH 


£ -O^sl ajBMBpa 


ir-4 




•fS 


iO»OfOiHNO 


i-HiOCS<N rji 


.10 -co^ 


^ -oj^ ajBM^pa 


• rHTH^HfO 


t>. •(>. CN^ 


CO CN i-H I-HIO 


l-H . . -CN 


X -ojsi ajBMEpa 


. . . . ymi 


CNNO it CN Tt< 


iO»0 -COCO 






■5 = 

II 


i 




I 

ir 




(NfO 

100 

CNfO 


35- 39.99 
40- 44.99 
45- 49.99 
50- 54.99 
55- 59.99 


60- 64.99 
65- 69.99 
70- 74.99 
75- 79.99 
80- 84.99 


85- 89.99 

90- 94.99 

95- 99.99 

100-104.99 

105-109.99 



210 





Tt 


»H -^t-^ 


^ 




f^vO 


1-t 




OS 

d 






: ; 


' : : 












: : 








■r-i • 


* ', 












• «s 


N 

^"g 






f*>^ 


; ; 












^^ 




^ 


; 




i-^ 






-^ 








r^ «s vo 


; 


; 




- : 




^ : 








5^i 


^ 


; 










: 














; 










^ 














»H 
















• T-l 


X?'"^: 






:-^ 
















55-"? 






; 






















«N • 




:- 


'- 


- 






:-^ 


■$sz; 




»-• • 






'- 


; 








§2:^ 






; 
















tH • 


vOcsr^ 






»-( 1^ 


- : 






'- 






; ; 


;^2§ 






; 












- 


: : 








; 
























; 


















— 5 
" :$ 






; 


















s-;^ 






; 




cs^ 












• y^ 








es 




es • 












1-1 • 




cs 


; 




<N CN 


1^ 








• TJH 


u->CNO 


cs 






cs • 


; 








; : 


0(NNO 
lO (N O 


-rtfO -es 


; : 


•1^ 


l-H 




• 1-1 


00 

52o 


»H ^-i • ?S »-1 l-t • 


; 


: : : 




• lO 




5 


a 
o 

1 


Ova 
•«*a 

CNCV 


a 


<-H 1^ 1- 
1 1 1 

^H «-l T- 




o 


i if 




§ 

7 

IT 




1 




1 



211 



w 

H 



O 
O 

5 

o 

1^ 
o 
U 

OO 



H 

PL, 






w 

X 

w 

w 

B 
o 

o 



S 








Ib;ox ^ 


^ t-- 0^^• 
t>• On '-H CN 
»H <N ,^ 


-^NOOOOOt^ 


«SOOOOnOC 
CS CS tH 


t^Tt^OO 

^—1 


»H 




*H 




'^ 


fO 


1,008 
1.49 


t 


Z -OM 3UABM 


• ioO»o 


<N »-t CN fS C^ 




: : : 








▼H • 


ONt^ o\ 


T -ON ^Pijns 


c*5 •Ov'* 


"^TfCNfOTH 


fS cs ^ cs 


• ^rO 












es 00 *-H 


X -oj^ sDuajMBq •;§ "^222*^ 


CS rO »H CN T-t 


: : : 




-H 
















NO 

toes lO 
lO 


I 'o^ oSas^o ^ ^ ^ ^ fN 


»-!•••• 


• iH • 




; 


















Z '0^ 039AVSO 


NO « OvfO 


es th . . . 


y-t • • 




»M 
















On 
CSr^ 00 


T -ojsr oub;uo 


• fOfC es 


^- Tfl CS tH iH 


CN«NC^ 




^H-^IH 














»o 


T -OM jauiT^tjaH 


rtlONOCO 


CN • • •■r-l 


• »H • 


^H 


; 














5"^ 2 


X -0^ auaajQ 




T-4 • v-4 • • 




y-t 


• 














1 "^ 


X -OM aug 


•tHtJ<io 


vO00t>. -Tii 


CO -tH 




-- 














»o 


£ -O^ UO^UTO 




: : : : : 


: : : 


: 


; 














esfO NO 

fO 


X "o^ BnbnB;nBq3 




lOI>rHrHCS 


CNCNTHCSrH 


1-1 • 


iH 










lO 

fOO '* 


£ 'oj^ sui3idmox 


• lONO^ 


lOfOCO -fO 


^^^ : 


•(N 
















2 'o^ suT5idmox 


•t^ONOO 


IOCS tH^-h ^ 




• tH »H 










iH 


•o 

t^ -"t NO 


X 'O^ SUT5ldlUOX 


•THVOlO 


fo'^Tft^ • 


-rt CSCNtH 


CN -^ 












CO CS VO 


f -O^ 30JU0p\[ 


^VONOlO 


ry tri fT) tT) r^ 


fOfOfO'-t 


l-^ 
















£ 'o^ aojuoj\[ 




^y-i -CNIO 


cs -cs • 


• y-t 














to 

CStO On 

to 


Z -OJ^ 90JUOp\[ 


•ro«NO 


IOCS fS 1-H • 


••rH^ CS CN 


»H »H 












cs 


to 

t^ON y-* 


X 'O^ 30JU0J^ 




«NCNrjH^^ 


^tHCS 


rH 


















to 

acN to 


9 -O^J 3iBMBpa 


^ONOVO 


Tj< .^^COt-) 


^H *^ • 
























9 -oj^ ajBMBpa 


CSl^ OvCN 


""tCNCSCS • 


; '■ ' 






















to 


t' -O^J 9iBMBpa 


^-lOvCN 00 


NOfO^'*^ 


CO^ CN 














T-t 






to 

CNNO t^ 


e -oj^ ajBAVBiaa 


-^tJ^OniO 
1-1 


O CNIO 1-1 • 


: : : 






















OO ^ 

tOiH ^ 


2 -ojsi ajBMEjaa '^ 


(TJIOOniO 


VOCNfO -rH 


• <fH ' y-tr^ 




^ 














o 

On 00 CO 


X *o]^ ajBMBpa 


^NOr^ON 


t^ csro • • 


• T-« • • »H 




^fO 












OvCO NO 




Other 

expenses 

of 

instruction 

$0 


.01- .49 

.50- .99 

1.00- 1.49 

1.50- 1.99 


2.00- 2.49 
2.50- 2.99 
3.00- 3.49 
3.50- 3.99 
4.00- 4.49 


4.50- 4.99 
5.00- 5.99 
6.00- 6.99 
7.00- 7.99 


00 

o 

00 


ON 


o 

iH 


i 

lO 


CN 


On 
O^ 

o> 

lO 

fS 


i 

o 

CO 


CO 


ON 

o> 
-<* 

i 

o 


On 
On 

»o 


Total.... 

Rank 

Median 
expense 



212 





I^^OX 


Or- fO NOro 


PO •* IC t^ -* 
Or^u^fOfO 




• es .^ ^«H 


|: 


T-l 


i2 

'u 

s 

u 
C/3 


3 -ON 9UABM 


•t^ CO (N O 


ON <N fO I-* -^ 


^^ : : : 




OnO 




T -ON ^lojgns 


. . cs CN o 


lOO rc -fO 


fO X cs ^ • 


• • • • 1-t • 




O 

q 
po 


X '0^ 9DU9jA\Bq 'rjs 


^fC CS CN NO 


•«* Tt cs cs • 


CSPO • • • 




Tt<oo 




X 'o^ oSas^o 


(NCNrJ^lO-rt 








lO 1-H 
















3 -OM OS9MSO 


y-i • (N ■<*'r-. 


lO ^H 1^ • tH 






(M 0» 


CO 










I -OM oub;uo 


T^(NrO'*0 


CNIOCS CS tH 


•fT) • • • 






^ 


X -ON j9rapiJ9H 


^H f<5 tH O fO 


i/:i(NfO^<N 


»-( ifH • • • 




PO o 


fS 
PO 

i-H 


X -OK 9U99JO 


CS CS tJ< Tt^t^ 


ro 1-H -CS tJ* 


• es th • . 




PC •^ 


1-4 


X -OM 3ua 


.^POt^CJO 


OC^fOCNTH 


.ff5 . . . 




OOn 

Tt ,-1 


q 


£ -oj^ uotjujio 


• cs ^ 0\ O 








s* 
















X -OM BnbnB^n^qo 


fOWONt^Tt 


fOCOCSt-H . 






prn>. 


o 

1—1 










£ '0]^ sui^idinox 


lOuocoO^ 
▼-< 1-1 


ro »-H CO »-i T-i 








Ov 






lO-PH 


Z -o^ suT^idraox 


riH^iOOO >* 


r>.fO ^ «N •^ 








NO 


'^ 


' 






X -OM sui^idraox 


•■^fOt>. Th 


TfiOCNCNCN 






Ot^ 

PO-^ 


s 

eg" 







t 'o^ aojuoj^ 


fS • CS •^Ov 


VC^VOVOCN 


^ »-l^ • • 





?2 


q 


£ -ON 90JU0I\[ 


^ -cOtOON 


OMO '*<NfO 


lOiO • • • 








e: -o]^ aojuop^ 


,-ilOt-» 


X >0 ^<N »H 


.fO • • • 




PO <N 




X -ON 90JU0K 


• • i-H 


CStHCSIDCS 


cs^ . • . 


Ov«N 


PO 


9 -OJ^ aJBMBpQ 


0(NTt*0-H 










o 






9 -O^ 9JBA\Bpa 


lOt^ i-ir<5 PO 


rofO'^iN • 


• -(N • • 




S"^ 


NO 

00 


f -oj^ ajBMBpa 


■^fCt^NO Tj' 


^f/J^ .^ 


:-^ : : : 


• -r-l • • • • 




NO 


g -OM 9JBMBpa 


ONu^OW* 


CO • • --^ 






OpO 




* 








3 -oj^ ajBMBpa 


t^ ^tOfO 00 


CS -^lOfO CN 


<N »H ^ • • 


• »H • • • T-l 


On NO 


00 


X -OM ajBMBpa 


r^vOt^OOfC 


fOCS^ -^ 


•PO .^ . 


: : :^ : : 


O^^ 


« 




^2 




$0 

.01- .49 

.50- .99 

1.00- 1.49 

1.50- 1.99 


2.00- 2.49 
2.50- 2.99 
3.00- 3.49 
3.50- 3.99 
4.00- 4.49 


4.50- 4.99 

5.00- 9.99 

10.00-14.99 

15.00-19.99 

20.00-24.99 


25.00-29.99 
30.00-34.99 
35.00-39.99 
40.00-44.99 
45.00-49.99 
50.00-54.99 


Total .... 

Rank 

Median 
expense 



213 



o 

I—) 
> 





t/5 

o 

o 
o 
w 
u 

o 

1^ 
o 
O 






Pi 






H 

CO 

O 

u 

p$ 
o 

in 

H 



W 

P4 



< 





Ib;ox 


t^ONOOvOO>«M 
fC f<^ <*5 O t^ to 


t-* »>. f*5 «N »-t 


t'-rfioes 


»H 


^^ 


VO . 


• <H 


CO 
■4-> 

2 

1 

> 


Z; -ojsi auABM 


•CSfOONONt>. 


irj r-l »H • ?s 












; ; 


: : 


T -ON ^fioijns 


•Hf^OOiO^fD 


t^VC<M»-t^ 












-^ : 


• »H 


X -OM aDuajMBq -r^s 


lO CN rj* t>. t^ 00 


"«t On ro <r> f*5 












»^ • 




\ -OM o33s:^o 


•«Nr<5ro«NO 


• cs -cs • 
















2 '0^ 033MSO 


.^sO-^ONt^ 


f/J T-HH »H • 


<N 














\ -ON oui3:mo 


• -cs es"0 T*< 


t>.NO Ttl?N • 


y-i 














I -ON JSui^jaH 


*H CS fO to O 'tH 


OOiTXN'fH . 
















X -oi^ auaajf) 


<N •>* a »H fo r^ 


: : :^ : 




^ 










X •o^[ 9ua 




^*-i?s -rv) 


' nH 












e -o^ uo;uii3 


»-l -t^ *-< ONfO 


*^ • • • • 
















X 'o^ BnbnB^nBqo 


•lOt^t^ONt" 


C^^fOCS■^ • 
















2 'o\^ suiiiclraox 


«N (Nt^OOtO 


fOfO^0CN»H 




▼H 










Z -ojsi suT^idraox 


• .-«tONONf*5 


f*5 T^CN es • 












»H • 




X -o^ suT^iduiox 




^fo -fscs 












• • 




f 'O^ 30JU0p\[ 


.^lOOOQO-"^ 


t>.iOT-i(N T-i 


^ 








- : : 




£ 'oj^ aojuop^ 


• -t^ONOOtN 


• lOfOrt* . 


vH 










<N • 




Z -ON aojuoj\[ 


• -fOOvfO^ 


lOfOfO • • 
















X 'oisE aojuoj^ 


•^ t^ONt-»r^ 


lO -^-pH . 


• <rH 












9 '0^ ajBMBpa 


'H ^OO f^JO 


(N • • '^^ 


• • 




:- 






9 -OM aJBAVBpQ 




C^lTH^ -CS 


cs • 












fr -OM SJBMBpa 




fO»0»H . • 


• r^ 












2 *0M ajBMBpQ 




fSfO Tj« . . 


• • 












2 -o^j ajBMBpa 


t^ P^<^ OniOOn 


^fOfS^ • 


• -^ (N 




• •^ • 




X -OM ajBMBpa 


•lOfClThONON 


^(y^ .^-(^ 


•»HCN • 




: : : 






p 


$0 

0- 0.99 

1- 1.99 

2- 2.99 

3- 3.99 

4- 4.99 


5- 5.99 

6- 6.99 

7- 7.99 

8- 8.99 

9- 9.99 




-t r 






5 i 


■5 NO* t>.* 

■5 vOt^ 


XO\ 

i-H y-t 



214 














3 




^* 


R 
fO 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 




«*5 

to 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 






:^ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 


S- 


00 

<N 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 




o 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 






: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 


fOOO 


00 

CM 


• »H • • • .... 






: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 






: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 


vOOO 


00 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 


r*0 


§ 

rl5 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 




<N 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 




CD 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 




NO 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 


5* 




: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 


OfO 


o 


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 




On 

to 


• • • • *-i 




8 

fO 











• 


00 
Oit>. «S 




























'. '. '^ 


osaa^osos 


OvONOsaOv 


OvOvOnOvO\ 


OvOsOsOv 






OsOnOvCNOn 


cvoavOsON 


Ov On On 0» 0\ 


OsOvOvOs^ 


>H 


O^ fs fO r^ 


u^vOi>-00Os 


O'HCvlfJ -* 


»0 v6 !>•' 00* c 


<u 


s-^^s 


CN CS CSCN CN 


<N<NeN(N<N 


cOfOfOrCfO 


777703 

lO Ot>- 00 On 


> 


1 1 1 1 1 


1 1 1 I 1 


1 1 i 1 1 


o 




«N CN <N CN CN 


fS CN (N CN CN 


r<5 f} PO fJ fi 


fOPOf<:PCfO 





215 



o 

CM 



o 
o 
w 

o 
o 



o 

0\ 






s 



o 

5 



O 

H 
a> 
O 
O 

O 



S 



o 

S 



Ib:jox 



CN •<-i T-i 






t^OvOfO-* 





Z -ON auABM 


^ 


• 1^ • • • 




T -ON ^iiojjns 


t»fO'*fO'-l »H 1-1 CS -co y-iT-i .cs 


• tH T-t 1-H 1-1 




1 -o^ aouajM-eq -t^g 


l^iOeSCS'<l< f0»O • -^ CN (N T-i • 


iH y^ 


l-< • 




X -0^ oSas^o 


«t^iH10*-4 • -T-l • • 


• iH • 


• »H 




iH 




Z -OM oSaMSQ 


fO^vOtO 


• -cs 


tH 










X -ojSE oub;uo 


t-rfvOlOfO •■^ -iHCS 


• »H • 














X -o^ jami5iJ3H 


CNOO-'J^iO^H CS-pH • '^ ^ -CS^ 














X •OJ^[ 3U99JO 


VOt^l^'^CS »HtH .^H • 


-^CSiH 














X -OK 9ua 


"^rJ^lOVOCN CSVOCSCS • 


•(NCS 


iH 1-1 








f -o^ uo:^uTi3 


tOPOTj^t-**-! CSCSCS^»-i 


• iH • 


■ '^ : 


tH • 


s 


X '0^ Bnt>nB:|nBq3 




T-l 'iH 


: : : 






S 
>» 


e •o>;[ sundraox 


t^ONVOiO-^ ^ -cs^^ 


iH • 




•<N 






> 


Z -o^ suT^idmox 


tH .... 


*H ^HCN 






a 


X -OM suT^idmox 


1-t ♦ • 


• ; 




• • 










f -o^ 90JU0p^ 


0\t^lO'*CS rH -CStH^ 


• CO 




: ; 






• iH 




£ 'o^ aojuoj^ 


lO <N 1-1 . lO T-i • tH • . 
PO • ... 






iH iH 






• iH 




Z -OJSI 90JUOJ^[ 


«^ .loiocq cspo-^iH^ 


CN 






• ; 










X 'OJ^ 90JUOp\[ 


"^10I>.<N»0 rhCStH-rHCS 


; ; 






. t-ItH<N 






9 -0^ 9JBA\B19Q 


»-l tH ... 


iH 






• iH 






9 -O^sl 9JBAVE|9Q 


esOt-1/5 . ^^r<5 . . .^ 








; ; 






t -O^ 9J[BA\BpQ 


o^^ .... 


; 






'' 






£: '0^ ajBM^PQ 


OOnOOihco <NCS -^ . th . 
<N ... 


*^ 






iH 






Z 'O^ 9JBMBI9a 


O O CS O Tj^ c<5 • TiH -cs .fO 


: 






^ 






X *OJSl 9JBMBPQ 


y-i y-t ...... 






' 





4) 

o 2 

"I 



0^ ^ On 0\ 
Tf* Cv rt< On 



0\ Ov 0^ 0\ 0\ 
Tfi Cs '^ On '!j^ 



On On 0\ On On 
On ^ On ^ On 



On On On On On 
tJh On ^ On ^ 



»Hi-4 CNCSfOCO"* T^IOJOVOVO t^t>.0000O\ 



o>oo»o 



iiiii 

o »o o lo o 

<N CS fO fO "^ 



ooooo 

Tj5 U^ lO O »0 



o lo o »o o 

t^' t^ 00* 00 On 



2l6 



lOOfOlOfS 


00fO'«*f^CM 


.^fV,^^ 


»H 


On • 
On • 
On 


00 




00 00 


* 


tH 




T-( CS *H *H T-l 


: : : : : 


• • 1-1 ^-H • 


: : : : :^ 






•cscs^ • 


T-f • • »— 1 • 


' Wt ' ' ' 




»0 On 


On 

NO 




N0»0 


CO 






.Tj^iDiOfO 


CS »-l ^H <-H »H 






ONTj^ 


**. 
t>.* 
















^ 




CN CSJ • ^ tH 








^5 iH 


o 




















00 

00 








§S 


IT) 










00 






• • tH • r-l 


























•fO-^^f^ 










° 




























Tt^O 


VO 






•fOCS'HTH 


. . . . ,_H 








<N 

1-H 
















o 


»H »H 
















fOCNfO-^ 


:^ :-^ : 








00 

CN* 


. ,^ . . . 


: : : : : 


. . • • y-i 




On 00 


NO 




POfO 


cs 








ONO 


° 








00 


o 








O'* 


00 






.^fO^ • 








On-h 


























« On 


o 






. . 





9.50- 9.99 
10.00- 14.99 
15.00- 19.99 
20.00- 24.99 
25.00- 29.99 


30.00- 34.99 
35.00- 39.99 
40.00- 44.99 
45.00- 49.99 
50.00- 54.99 


55.00- 59.99 
60.00- 64.99 
65.00- 69.99 
70.00- 74.99 
75.00- 79.99 


80.00- 84.99 
85.00- 89.99 
90.00- 94.99 
95.00- 99.99 
100.00-104.99 
105.00-109.99 


Total 

Rank 

Median ex- 
pense . . . 



217 



o 

in 

M 
> 

w 
w 



o 
o 
w 

u 

o 

o 
u 

s 

w 

O 
< 

< 



1^ 
< 

O 

C/3 
W 

H 











l^;ox 




f<:ivo«'^cs ooOMcsTj* focs 

"^CNCSCS-r^ 


•^CS CS i-< 


1,008 
.85 


en 

■^-> 
O 

l-i 

1 

C/3 


3 -ojsE auA^M 




. »H • • 


: : : : 


: : : 










o 

0\ VO t^ 
fO 


T 'ON ^PU^S 


rj< i>. rJH rc t^ 


es^ -cs ^ 










• iH 




cs T-i t^ 


X 'O^J^ 9DU9JMBq 't^s 


00 »Ht^ Tj<t>. 


'*CN'«tCNrJ 


i lO^-* 


:- 


i cs 










cs 
lO^ ^• 


X -oj^ o39s;o 


rt fN t^fO »H 


^ trH CN ^ 






• tpH 










• CO • 




vOtO lO 
CS 


Z -O^ OS9AVSO 


Tj* -OOIOCN 


cs • • • 




















• iH 




o 
esfO 00 


X -ON oub;uo 


t^csaxcs 


-rtfO^ • 






















• iH 


tJ^On Ox 

COtH 


X -ON J9mi3iJ9H 




CO • • • 


























lO 


X -OM 9U99JO 




• • • ^H 


























»O00 Ov 


X -o^ 9Ua 


fOroOvOrO 


^^f<5 • 


l-H 






















i-tiO 00 


£ -ON uo^ujo 




CStH »-i . 


• iH 




















to 

CSOn t^ 
fO 


X 'o^j Ent)nB:^nBq3 


t^^^vOeo 


POfO CS <N ^ 


-^ : 


rH tH 














VO 
CS O 1-1 


£: -oj^ suT^idmox 


t-ItH\0100 


• • CS CM 




<N 


1-1 








- 


tH 


oot^ 00 


2 'o^ sui>idmox 




• r-4 »H • ^H 




: 




















to 

vote VO 

CO 


X -0^ sui5[draox 




• • • . tH 




: 




















to 

fO 


f •ojs[ 90juoi\: 


»OfO '{NiO 


^Tt^rJ^rf^CN 


^ ^ cs 




















e -OJ^ 90JUOJ^ 








«H 




















to 

rHOO t^ 

to 


Z -O^ 90JU0I^ 


T^lOTjilO'* 


lOfC^PC 


























VO 
t-cs to 


X 'O^ 90JU0p^ 




f^ 


^H 1-1 


























ov* iH 


9 -O^ 9aBMBl9a 


^ ^fO 00 • 


• 








1-1 


















cs 


5 •OJS[ 9JBAVBl9a 




; ; 










l-H 














_ O 
O CS to 


t 'O^sl 9JBMB19Q 


oo»ooovo^ 


-* 


tH • • 














cs 








iH 


00 
vO<N t^ 


£ -O^J 9JBMBI9Q 




•(N 


























VO 
O^ to 
to 


3 -OJSJ 9JBAVBl9a 


lOOOl^O"^ 


fO 


l-H • 












tH 












On-* 00 


X -OM 9JBMBpa 


vOCSPCf^(N 

CS y-i 


y-i^-^ • • ^H 










-" : : 












OVO 00 






$0 

.01- 0.49 

.50- .99 

1.00- 1.49 

1.50- 1.99 


(NCS 
cs CN 


3.00- 3.49 
3.50- 3.99 
4.00- 4.49 


i 

»o 


lO 

10 






00 
00 




§; 

o 
6 


lO 

iH 


cs 

i 

d 
cs 


a 
cs 

lO 

cs 


On 
On 
rf 
fO 

6 

CO 


CO 


Total .... 

Rank 

Median 
expense . 



2l8 



Table 72. — Expenditures for Teachers' Salaries Per Average Daily 
Attendance in 1,070 Common School Districts, 79 Union Free School 
Districts and 104 Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 



Teachers' salaries 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities and 
villages 
under super- 
intendents 


Total 


$10-14.99 
15-19.99 
20-24.99 
25-29.99 
30-34.99 


1 
5 

14 
61 
76 


2 
4 


'5 
17 


1 

5 

14 
68 
97 


35-39.99 
40-44.99 
45-49.99 
50-54.99 
55-59.99 


107 

127 

96 

88 

64 


13 
17 
13 
20 
6 


34 

25 

14 

3 

4 


154 
169 
123 
111 
74 


60-64.99 
65-69.99 
70-74.99 
75-79.99 
80-84.99 


59 
54 
23 
30 
33 


• 


1 

2 

1 


1 


61 
54 

25 
31 
33 


85-89.99 

90-94.99 

95-99.99 

100-104.99 

105-109.99 


20 
30 
8 
16 
17 




2 


* 


1 


21 
32 
8 
16 
17 


110-114.99 
115-119.99 
120-124.99 
125-129.99 
130-134.99 


8 

7 
8 
7 
1 


* 








8 

7 
8 
7 
1 


135-139.99 
140-144.99 
145-149.99 
150-154.99 
155-159.99 


11 

5 

4 
1 








• 


11 

5 

4 

1 


160-164.99 
165-169.99 
170-174.99 
175-179.99 
180-184.99 
185 and over 


4 
1 

1 

3 
16 










4 

1 
1 

'3 
16 


Total 


1,006 


81 


104 


1,191 






Median expense . . . 


50.9 


46.7 


39.41 


48.55 



219 



Table 73. — Expenditures for Other Expenses of Instruction (Per 
Average Daily Attendance) in 1,008 Common School Districts, 81 
Union Free School Districts, 104 Cities and Villages Under Super- 
intendents 



Other expenses 
of instruction 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities and 
villages 
under super- 
intendents 


Total 


$0 


11 






11 


.01-.49 


79 


'7 


'4 


90 


.50-.99 


197 


11 


5 


213 


1.00-1.49 


219 


19 


10 


248 


1.50-1.99 


127 


15 


14 


156 


2.00-2.49 


104 


9 


16 


129 


2.50-2.99 


56 


9 


14 


79 


3,00-3.49 


48 


4 


14 


66 


3.50-3.99 


28 





11 


39 


4.00-4.49 


27 


1 


5 


33 


4.50-4.99 


22 


3 


4 


29 


5.00-5.99 


20 


3 


3 


26 


6.00-6.99 


18 




1 


19 


7.00-7.99 


9 






2 


11 


8.00-8.99 


8 








8 


9.00-9.99 


7 








7 


10.00-14.99 


14 






*i 


15 


15.00-19.99 


8 








8 


20.00-24.99 


1 








1 


25.00-29.99 










... 


30.00-34.99 


1 








1 


35.00-39.99 








. . - 




40.00-44.99 


i 


. 






i 


45.00-49.99 


3 


• 






3 


Total 


1,008 


81 


104 


1,193 




Median expense . . . 


1.49 


1.61 


2.60 


1.51 



220 



Table 74. — Expenditures for Wages of Janitors (Per Average Daily 
Attendance) in 999 Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School 
Districts, 104 Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 





Common 


Union free 


Cities and 
villages 
under super- 
intendents 




Wages of janitors 


school 


school 


Total 




districts 


districts 




$0 


107 






107 


.01- .49 


74 






74 


.50- .99 


136 






136 


1.00-1.49 


165 


1 




166 


1.50-1.99 


135 


10 




145 


2.00-2.49 


103 


8 


9 


120 


2.50-2.99 


74 


14 


18 


106 


3.00-3.49 


55 


12 


25 


92 


3.50-3.99 


37 


15 


15 


67 


4.00-4.49 


34 


6 


12 


52 


4.50-4.99 


23 


8 


10 


41 


5-9.99 


41 


6 


15 


62 


10-14.99 


8 


1 




9 


15-19.99 


2 






2 


20-24.99 










25-29.99 










30-34.99 


2 






2 


35-39.99 










40-44.99 


1 






1 


45-49.99 


1 


.. 




1 


50-54.99 


1 






1 


Total 


999 


81 


104 


1,184 




Median expense . . . 


1.56 


3.31 


3.50 


1.87 



221 



Table 75. — Auxiliary Agencies Per Average Daily Attendance in 1,008 
Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School Districts, 104 Cities 
and Villages Under Superintendents 





Common 


Union free 


Cities and 
villages 
under super- 
intendents 




Auxiliary agencies 


school 


school 


Total 




districts 


districts 




W 


137 






137 


.01- .49 


128 


14 


3 


145 


.50- .99 


343 


31 


14 


388 


1.00-1,49 


160 


13 


32 


205 


1.50-1.99 


68 


6 


16 


90 


2.00-2.49 


43 


6 


13 


62 


2.50-2.99 


26 


2 


10 


38 


3.00-3.49 


28 


1 


6 


35 


3.50-3.99 


21 


3 


3 


27 


4.00-4.49 


12 


2 


6 


20 


4.50-4.99 


8 




1 


9 


5.00-5.99 


6 






6 


6.00-6.99 


8 






8 


7.00-7.99 


2 






2 


8.00-8.99 


4 






5 


9.0O-9.99 


3 






4 


10.00-14.99 


2 






3 


15.00-19.99 










20.00-24.99 


4 






'4 


25.00-29.99 


2 






2 


30.00-34.99 


2 






2 


35.00 and over 


1 






1 


Total 


1,008 


81 


104 


1,193 




Median expense . . . 


.84 


.92 


1.59 


.90 



222 



Table 76. — Expenditures for Cost of Fuel (Per Average Daily Atten- 
dance) IN 1,012 Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School Dis- 
tricts, 104 Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 



Cost of fuel 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities and 
villages 
under super- 
intendents 


Total 


$0 

.01- .99 

1-1.99 

2-2.99 

3-3.99 


37 

39 

138 

206 

179 


'8 

4 

14 

11 


3 
13 
26 
30 


37 

50 

155 

246 

220 


4-4.99 
5-5.99 
6-6.99 
7-7.99 
8-8.99 
9-9.99 


152 

73 
72 
38 
27 
16 


16 
9 

5 
5 
5 
1 


1 

1 

f 


6 
1 

4 

1 


184 
93 
81 
44 
32 
17 


10-10.99 
11-11.99 
12-12.99 
13-13.99 
14-14.99 


7 
4 
5 
2 

1 




i 
i 






7 
5 
5 
3 
1 


15-15.99 
16-16.99 
17-17.99 
18-18.99 
19-19.99 




1 
6 

1 












1 
6 

i 


20-20.99 
21-21.99 
22-22.99 
23-23.99 
24-24.99 


• 
• 


3 












3 


25-25.99 
26-26.99 
27-27.99 
28-28.99 
29-29.99 


• 














• 


30-30.99 
31-31.99 
32-32.99 
33-33.99 
34-34.99 




i 












i 


35-35.99 
36-36.99 
37-37.99 
38-38.99 
39 and over 
Over 39.99 


• 


4 




i 








4 

1 


Total 


1,012 


81 


104 


1,197 




Median expense . . . 


3.48 


4.21 


3.33 


3.50 



223 



Table 77. — Expenditures for Cost or Maintenance (Per Average Daily 
Attendance) in 999 Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School 
Districts, 104 Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 



Cost of maintenance 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities and 

villages 
under super- 
intendents 


Total 


$0 

.01- .49 

.50- .99 

1.00- 1.49 

1.50- 1.99 


260 

158 

116 

97 

49 


ii 

10 
15 

7 


'4 

6 

17 

26 


260 
175 
132 
129 

82 


2.00- 2.49 
2.50- 2.99 
3.00- 3.49 
3.50- 3.99 
4.00- 4.49 


40 
31 
22 
15 
19 


3 

10 
5 
1 
3 


19 

10 

6 

5 
3 


62 
51 

33 
21 

25 


4.50- 4.99 
5.00- 5.49 
5.50- 5.99 
6.00- 6.49 
6.50- 6.99 


7 

16 
13 
12 

2 


4 
2 
1 
2 
1 




2 
2 


13 
18 
16 
14 

3 


7.00- 7.49 
7.50- 7.99 
8.00- 8.49 
8.50- 8.99 
9.00- 9.49 


7 

10 
6 
3 
4 


i 




3 

i 


10 
11 

7 
3 
4 


9.50- 9.99 
10.00- 14.99 
15.00- 19.99 
20.00- 24.99 
25.00- 29.99 


5 
30 
23 
15 
12 




2 
1 






5 
32 
24 
15 
12 


30.00- 34.99 
35.00- 39.99 
40.00- 44.99 
45.00- 49.99 
50.00- 54.99 


8 
3 
4 
3 
2 










8 
3 
4 
3 
2 


55.00- 59.99 
60.00- 64.99 
65.00- 69.99 
70.00- 74.99 
75.00- 79.99 


2 
1 
1 




* r 






i 

2 

1 
1 


80.00- 84.99 
85.00- 89.99 
90.00- 94.99 
95.00- 99.99 
100.00-104.99 
105.00-109.99 


1 

*i 










1 


Total 


999 


81 


104 


1,184 




Median expense . . . 


.85 


1.67 


1.98 


1.09 



224 



Table 78. — Percent of Total Expenses Distributed for Other Expenses 
OF Instruction in 1,008 Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School 
Districts, 59 Cities 



Percent of 
total expenses 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities 


Total 



.1- .9 

1- 1.9 

2- 2.9 

3- 3.9 


123 
304 
272 
119 
56 


7 

18 
24 
13 


'3 
3 
9 

10 


123 
314 
293 
152 
79 


4- 4.9 

5- 5.9 

6- 6.9 

7- 7.9 

8- 8.9 


43 
25 
16 
10 
11 


9 

3 
4 
3 


12 
9 

8 
1 
3 


64 
37 
28 
14 
14 


9- 9.9 
10-10.9 
11-11.9 
12-12.9 
13-13.9 


4 
9 

2 
5 
1 






1 


5 
9 

2 
5 
1 


14-14.9 
15-15.9 
16-16.9 
17-17.9 
18-18.9 


' 














19-19.9 
20-20.9 
30-30.9 


6 

2 








6 
2 


Total 


1,008 


81 


59 


1,148 




Median percent of 
expense 


1.28 


2.64 


4.37 


1.46 



IS 



225 



Table 79. — Percent of Total Expenses Distributed For Wages of 
Janitors and Other Employees in 996 Common School Districts, 81 
Union Free School Districts and 59 Cities 



Percent of 
total expenses 


Common 
school 


Union free 
school 


Cities 


Total 


districts 


districts 




. 





107 






107 


.1- 0.9 


114 






114 


1- 1.9 


207 






207 


2- 2.9 


180 


1 




181 


3- 3.9 


142 


15 


1 


158 


4- 4.9 


101 


20 


12 


133 


5- 5.9 


57 


18 


16 


91 


6- 6.9 


31 


18 


19 


68 


7- 7.9 


26 


8 


7 


41 


8- 8.9 


15 




4 


19 


9- 9.9 


8 


. 




8 


10-10.9 


6 








6 


11-11.9 












12-12.9 


2 








2 


13-13.9 












14-14.9 




1 




1 


Total 


996 


81 


59 


1,136 




Median percent of 










expense 


2.38 


5.25 


6.02 


2.77 



226 



Table 80. — Percent op Total Expenses Distributed for Fuel in 1,012 
Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School Districts, and 59 
Cities 



Percent of 
total expenses 


Common 

school 

districts 


Union free 

school 

districts 


Cities 


Total 



.1- .99 

1- 1.99 

2- 2.99 

3- 3.99 


37 
22 
32 
87 
144 


*5 
3 
2 
9 


1 

'2 
3 
9 


38 
27 
37 
92 
162 


4- 4.99 

5- 5.99 

6- 6.99 

7- 7.99 

8- 8.99 


149 

181 

126 

S3 

56 


8 

8 

12 

6 

7 


10 
14 

8 
6 

2 


167 

203 

146 

95 

65 


9- 9.99 
10-10.99 
11-11.99 
12-12.99 
13-13.99 


31 
18 
17 
10 
4 


10 

3 
3 

'3 


2 
1 
1 


43 
22 
21 
10 

7 


14-14.99 
15-15.99 
16-16.99 
17-17.99 
18-18.99 


5 
3 
1 
2 
1 




i 




5 
4 
1 
2 

1 


19-19.99 
20-20.99 
21-21.99 
22-22.99 
23-23.99 


1 
1 








1 
1 
1 


24-24.99 
25-25.99 
26-26.99 


i 


. 






1 


Total 


1,012 


81 


59 


1,152 




Median percent of 
expense 


5.19 


6.45 


5.32 


5.26 



227 



Table 81. — Percent of Total Expenses Distributed for Cost of Main- 
tenance IN 999 Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School Dis- 
tricts, AND 59 Cities 



Percent of 
total expenses 


Common 
school 


Union free 
school 


Cities 


Total 


districts 


districts 









269 






269 


.1- 0.9 


198 


U 


i 


213 


1- 1.9 


134 


12 


3 


149 


2- 2.9 


74 


17 


17 


108 


3- 3.9 


57 


6 


16 


79 


4- 4.9 


39 


10 


11 


60 


5- 5.9 


31 


7 


3 


41 


6- 6.9 


21 


5 


2 


28 


7- 7.9 


18 


2 


5 


25 


8- 8.9 


13 


1 


1 


15 


9- 9.9 


12 


2 




14 


10-10.9 


9 


1 




10 


11-11.9 


6 


1 




7 


12-12.9 


8 






8 


13-13.9 


5 


•• 




5 


14-14.9 


7 


1 




8 


15-19.9 


19 


2 




21 


20-24.9 


25 






25 


25-29.9 


29 






29 


30-34.9 


20 






20 


35-39.9 


4 








40-44.9 










45-49.9 










50-54.9 










55-59.9 


i 








Total 


999 


81 


59 


1,139 






Median percent of 










expense 


1.24 


2.85 


3.53 


1.58 



228 



Table 82. — Percent of Total Expenses Distributed for Auxiliary 
Agencies in 1,008 Common School Districts, 81 Union Free School Dis- 
tricts, AND 59 Cities 



Percent of 
total expenses 


Common 
school 


Union free 
school 


Cities 


Total 


districts 


districts 









137 






137 


.1- 0.9 


284 


20 


i 


305 


1- 1.9 


283 


32 


11 


326 


2- 2.9 


124 


10 


22 


156 


3- 3.9 


73 


5 


12 


90 


4- 4.9 


56 


8 


5 


69 


5- 5.9 




2 


3 


5 


5- 9.9 


42 






42 


6- 6.9 




1 


4 


5 


10-14.9 


1 


3 


1 


5 


15-19.9 


2 






2 


20-24.9 


2 






2 


25-29.9 


1 






1 


30-34.9 


3 






3 


Total 


1,008 


81 


59 


1,148 






Median percent of 










expense 


1.29 


1.64 


2.79 


1.40 



229 



Table 83. — Equalized Valuations Per Teacher in First-, Second-, and 
Third-Class Cities and Villages Under Superintendents 


Equalized 
valuations 


First- 
class 


Second- 
class 


Third- 
class 


Villages 


Total 


$0- 9,999 

90,000- 99,999 

100,000-109,999 

110,000-119,999 






2 

2 


i 

3 


i 

3 

5 


120,000-129,999 
130,000-139,999 






3 
1 


2 
4 


5 
5 ■ 


140,000-149,999 
150,000-159,999 
160,000-169,999 






1 
9 

2 


4 
4 
2 


5 
13 

4 


170,000-179,999 
180,000-189,999 
190,000-199,999 
200,000-209,999 
210,000-219,999 






6 
4 

'3 
1 


2 
3 
2 

1 


9 

7 
2 
5 
1 


220,000-229,999 
230,000-239,999 
240,000-249,999 
250,000-259,999 
260,000-269,999 


i 
1 




1 
1 

3 
1 

2 


3 
2 

'2 


5 
3 
4 
4 
3 


270,000-279,999 
280,000-289,999 
290,000-299,999 
300,000-309,999 
310,000-319,999 




"l 


1 


1 

1 


2 

1 
2 


320,000-329,999 
330,000-339,999 
340,000-349,999 
350,000-359,999 
360,000-369,999 




1 


1 
1 
1 


3 


5 
1 
1 


370,000-379,999 
380,000-389,999 
390,000-399,999 
400,000-409,999 
410,000-419,999 


i 




^'i 


1 


"1 

1 
1 


420,000-429,999 
430,000-439,999 
440,000-449,999 






i 




i 


Over 450,000 






•• 


3 


3 




3 


7 


49 


45 


104 



Median = 182,857 
230 






Table 84. — Equalized Valuations and Number of Teachers for First-, 
Second-, and Third-Class Cities Arranged According to Valuations 
Per Teacher in Ascending Order 

Cities 
Equalized 

valuations Cities Number of teachers 

First-Class 

250,000-259,999 Rochester 1,422 

260,000-269,999 Buffalo 2,330 

400,000-409,999 New York 23,529 

Second-Class 

170,000-179,999 Binghamton 340 

200,000-209,999 Schenectady 550 

220,000-229,999 Utica 450 

240,000-249,999 Troy 231 

290,000-299,999 Syracuse 691 

'' Yonkers 590 

320,000-329,999 Albany 422 

Third-Class 

90,000- 99,999 Coming 38 

100,000-109,999 Cortland 63 

WatervHet 67 

110,000-119,999 Newburgh 247 

" Oneida 58 

120,000-129,999 Plattsburg 48 

Port Jervis 62 

Johnstown 64 

130,000-139,999 HomeU 65 

140,000-149,999 Saratoga Springs 70 

150,000-159,999 Hudson 56 

" Salamanca 49 

" Auburn 193 

" " Mechanicsville 65 

" " Rensselaer 57 

" Olean 125 

" Norwich 48 

" " Canandaigua 47 

" Ogdensburg 62 

160,000-169,999 Lockport 1 19 

'' Elmira 226 

170,000-179,999 Dunkirk 109 

" Gloversville 117 

" Tonawanda 52 

" Beacon 52 

" Watertown 168 

" Rome 111 

180,000-189,999 Kingston 118 

" No. Tonawanda 79 

" " Jamestown 206 

" Fulton 68 

200,000-209,999 Oneonta 51 

" Amsterdam 152 

" Batavia 80 

210,000-219,999 Ithaca 101 

231 



Table 84. — Equalized Valuations and Number of Teachers for First-, 
Second- and Third-Class Cities Arranged According to Valuations 
Per Teacher in Ascending Order — Continued 

Cities 
Equalized 

valuations Cities Number of teachers 

Third-Class 

220,000-229,999 Little Falls 49 

230,000-239,999 Geneva 74 

240,000-249,999 Corning 38 

" Glen Falls 61 

" Oswego 100 

250,000-259,999 Cohoes 60 

260,000-269,999 Middletown 78 

260,000-269,999 Mt. Vernon 256 

270,000-279,999 Poughkeepsie 139 

320,000-329,999 White Plains 132 

330,000-339,999 New Rochelle 63 

340,000-349,999 Glencove 48 

380,000-389,999 Niagara Falls 242 

430,000-439,999 Lackawanna 63 

Villages 

100,000-109,999 Malone 45 

110,000-119,999 Endicott 84 

'' Port Chester 137 

" Waverly 36 

120,000-129,999 Hoosick Falls 28 

" Owego 28 

130,000-139,999 Albion 83 

'' Fredonia 33 

Johnson City 67 

Peekskill (District No. 8) 36 

140,000-149,999 No. Tarrytown 29 

" Peekskill (District No. 7) 40 

" PennYan 30 

" " Saranac Lake 31 

150,000-159,999 Haverstraw 24 

" Medina 37 

Nyack 41 

Patchogue - 49 

160,000-169,999 Catskill 28 

" Waterford 25 

170,000-179,999 Newark 42 

'' Seneca Falls 31 

180,000-189,999 Dansville 24 

" " Massena 44 

" Wellsville 36 

190,000-199,999 Hempstead 53 

'' Ilion 59 

200,000-209,999 Freeport 62 

220,000-229,999 Lancaster 27 

" Ossining 61 

Solvay 63 

232 



(C CC 



a il 



a u 



Table 84. — Equalized Valuations and Number of Teachers for First-, 
Second-, and Third-Class Cities Arranged Accordino to Valuations 
Per Teacher in Ascending Order — Continued 

Villages 
Equalized 

valuations Cities Number of teachers 

230,000-239,999 Herkimer 62 

'' RockviUe Center 41 

250,000-259,999 Bay Shore 31 

'' " Huntington 51 

270,000-279,999 Lawrence 62 

280,000-289,999 Hastings-on-Hudson 31 

320,000-329,999 Depew 25 

Port Washington 47 

Tarry town 32 

380,000-389,999 Pelham Manor 43 

390,000-399,999 Mamaroneck 56 

720,000-729,999 Walden 30 

800,000-809,999 Whitehall 35 

980,000-989,999 Hudson Falls 39 



(I 



233 



SURVEY OF NEW YORK STATE 
RURAL SCHOOLS 

1 HE survey was organized with the following sections 
and directors: 

Administration and Supervision. C. H. Judd. 

School Support. Harlan Updegraff. 

Teachers and Courses of Study. W. C. Bagley. 

School Buildings. J. E. Butterworth. 

Measuring the Work of the Schools. M. E. Haggerty. 

Community Relations. Mabel Carney. 

The results of the studies conducted by these directors 
and their associates have been embodied in a series of 
reports. The approximate dates at which these will be 
available for distribution are: 

Volume I. Rural School Survey of New York State. 

(Preliminary Report) May, 1922. 
Volume II. Administration and Supervision, October, 1922. 

The District System. Shelby. 

The Supervisory District. Brooks. 

The Community Unit. Works. 

Principles of Administration. Bobbitt. 

The State System of Examinations. Kruse. 

Health Education. Peterson. 

The State Schools of Agriculture. Holton. 

Junior Extension. Holton. 

Summary and Recommendations. Judd. 
Volume III. School Support. Updegraff. August, 1922. 
Volume IV. Teachers and Teacher Preparation. Bagley. 
September, 1922. 

Elementary School Curriculum. Brim. 

Community Relations. Carney. 
Volume V. School Buildings. Butterworth. June, 1922. 
Volume VI. The Educational Product. Haggerty. July, 1922. 
Volume VII. The Rural High Schools. Ferriss. August, 1922. 
(The administrative features of the high school 

were studied in cooperation with Dr. Judd, while 

teachers and curricula weje developed under the 

general direction of Dr. Bagley.) 
Volume VIII. Vocational Education. Eaton. July, 1922. 

(Prepared under the direction of Dr. Bagley.) 



These volumes may be obtained at seventy-five cents each, post- 
paid, except Volume II, on Administration and Supervision, which 
will be one dollar. Only a limited edition will be printed and those 
wishing to make certain of securing copies may place their orders at 
any time. 

Joint Committee on Rural Schools^ 
Ithaca, N. F. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 324 254 4 



Hi! 



'^' !'■'-■':: 'ill' 



II pill 

'ii! 



!l Hi 



M'M|||. 



I 



t i 



I'll ' I : I, 



'i''i"|llli 

■ii 



lillllM -mih 



